Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

London Airport (Noise)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Aviation if he can yet state his decision about the application by British European Airways to fly Comet 4B aircraft to and from London Airport at night.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Test flights are continuing. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a decision fairly soon.

Mr. Harris: Before the Minister finally makes a decision, will he consider the possibility of operating jet aircraft

at night from strips on coastal areas where they would not cause quite so much disturbance to the local residents?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.

de Havillands Ltd., Christchurch (Orders)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the possibility of a follow-on order to be placed with de Havillands at Christchurch.

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.

Aircraft Industry

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will issue a White Paper setting out the sums contributed by Her Majesty's Government to each civil aviation development project since the war, together with the sums repaid to Her Majesty's Government in respect of each project.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The figures, in the form asked for, over this long period are not readily available. I propose, therefore, to discuss with the hon. Lady how best I can give her the information she requires without imposing an undue amount of work on my staff.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that this is not just a question of satisfying the hon. Lady; it is a question of the principle of public accountability? Over £60 million has been spent on research and development of civil aircraft since the


end of the war in connection with which no matter of security arises. Surely the House has a right to know where the money has gone and what return we have had for it. There is a constitutional problem involved here of putting them in some form over which Parliament can have control over public funds.

Mr. Sandys: I have no illusions that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Lady. What I said was that I would discuss with her in what form the figures she is asking for could be presented to Parliament without causing an altogether disproportionate amount of work in my Department. She has asked for figures going right the way back to 1945, and this is my difficulty. It is extremely difficult to separate the amount of assistance being given to military and civil projects, particularly with regard to aero-engines where they are developed for both purposes.

Mr. Strauss: One appreciate that difficulty. There are no doubt some figures available. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that there were. He says that he will make the figures available to Parliament, but in what form does he propose to do that? Will there be some statement in HANSARD or something like that, because these figures are all-important?

Mr. Sandys: I will try to do it in a form which is convenient to the House.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now state in detail the steps which he intends to take to ensure that Her Majesty's Government receives a share of the profits arising from the development of civil aircraft in return for the public money he is investing in these projects.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he has now considered the desirability of issuing as soon as possible a White Paper setting out in full the Government's plans for strengthening the aircraft industry.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what total sums he intends providing towards the initial costs of developing new types of aircraft, of producing a limited number of aircraft over and above firm orders, and of proving and introducing new types of civil aircraft into regular airline service.

Mr. Sandys: I have nothing at present to add to the statement on this subject which I made last week.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that the Press has widely described that statement as seriously unsatisfactory in just these particular respects? Is it not time that a thorough review was made of the basis on which this public money is put into the hands of private firms? Is it not also desirable that the Government and the public taxpayers should not only get recoupment of a certain percentage of the cost, but should be given a share in the profits by the acquisition of equities in these companies, carrying with them the right to appoint directors to the boards so that proper control can be introduced?

Mr. Sandys: I have already made it clear in my statement last week that the Government propose to make arrangements in the contract with each firm governing the assistance to be granted and for recouping a share of the proceeds.

Mrs. Castle: Not proceeds, profits.

Mr. Sandys: I also explained that profits and proceeds are closely related. There is quite an advantage in having a contract which provides for recouping a share of the proceeds, even though there may not be a profit.

Mr. Strauss: On the question of the White Paper, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to do so at the moment because he wants to discuss the matter with the aircraft industry—and that is understandable—will he shortly issue a White Paper which will set out in greater detail the very broad indications of policy which he sketched to the House last week? Does he not realise that the House is entitled to know the manner and extent to which he proposes to apply that policy? In particular, if there is to be closer partnership with the aircraft industry, as he implied, why should that partnership not be made a reality by some participation in the equity shares of the company, or otherwise by some Government representation on the boards of the companies?

Mr. Sandys: I have already said that it was not our policy to take equity shares in the companies. There is another Question down on the Order


Paper about Government participation on the boards of the companies. As regards the issue of a White Paper, as I explained—the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) referred to this himself—I am at the moment discussing these matters with the manufacturers, and this would not be an appropriate moment to give more information. When the time comes, I shall consider giving more information, but I doubt very much that it will justify the publication of a White Paper. I will consider in what form it will be most convenient to give the House that information.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister recall that since he made the statement to which he has just referred, he has indicated to the Chancellor that he will require in the Estimates for next year £7 million odd for the development of civil aviation for the many purposes set out in Question No. 14, and for the development of military aviation he will require £198 million? Does he tell the House that, in asking for that money, he has no idea what he will do with it?

Mr. Sandys: I shall not discuss the Estimates before they are published.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, when one asks a simple question like this, without seeking to discuss—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister's use of the word "proceeds" as opposed to "profits" mean that he expects some of these projects which he will support with public money to be unprofitable? If he says "No", that he expects them all to be profitable, will he tell us what steps he intends to take to make sure that this money cannot be raised in the market?

Mr. Sandys: I shall not say in advance whether some of these projects will be profitable or unprofitable. In the past, we have had some of each.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Aviation, (1) what are the numbers employed in the aircraft industry in Scotland: and how they will be affected by the mergers proposed for the aircraft industry;
(2) what development contracts are being placed in Scotland as a result of the present mergers between aircraft firms.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what support he intends giving to the aircraft industry in Scotland.

Mr. Sandys: The Government's support of the aircraft industry, of which I gave particulars last week, is designed to strengthen the industry as a whole and should, therefore, increase the prospects of employment generally.
It is estimated that, at the end of 1959, the aircraft industry in Scotland employed about 12,500 people. Rolls-Royce, which employs over 10,000 in Scotland, is one of the two major aeroengine manufacturers on which the Government proposes, as far as possible, to concentrate orders.

Mr. Small: I thank the Minister for that Answer. He has referred to aeroengines at Rolls-Royce, and the figure given of 12,500 is the total employment of trained personnel in Scotland. Does he appreciate that my Question refers to the aircraft industry, and it is our share of the aircraft industry as such in Scotland about which I am particularly concerned?

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman particularise a little? We accept, of course, the position he has indicated with regard to aeroengines in Scotland, but does he realise that the aircraft production side of the industry is steadily disappearing and the industry at Prestwick has almost gone out'? Does he realise that maintenance work at Renfrew will, by June, have disappeared completely? What does he propose to do to help Scotland, which did have some of this industry but which now, under the present Government, is rapidly losing it?

Mr. Sandys: I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe it is right that maintenance work at Renfrew will be running out in June—

Mr. Rankin: Oh.

Mr. Sandys: I stand to be corrected on that, but I do not believe that it is so. As regards Scottish Aviation Ltd, which is the firm. I think, which the hon. Member has in mind, I should, of


course, be very happy to see that firm included in one or other of the major groups. I am still hoping, though not necessarily confident.

Mr. Rankin: What encouragement is being offered to Scottish Aviation, Limited, to take part in any of the mergers?

Mr. Sandys: I do not believe that it needs much encouragement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that he is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the west of Scotland by his superficial references to Prestwick? Is he aware that there is an industry which has grown up round the civil airport, one of the biggest in the world, yet now it seems that he has no clear practical proposals—only hopes? Can he give some indication that he is really thinking of doing something for this very important sector of our economy?

Mr. Sandys: All the three Questions which I answered were related to the aircraft industry.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation what estimate he has made of the effect of the amalgamation of the firm producing the Rotodyne with another company on employment in Hayes, Middlesex.

Mr. Rippon: It is premature to attempt to estimate the effect of the recent merger on employment at Hayes.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the Minister bear in mind that, in this and other cases, it would be highly desirable if some intimation of changes could be given to trade union officers and shop stewards in order to prevent a great deal of unnecessary personal concern and anxiety?

Mr. Rippon: These are, of course, matters for the management. We cannot forecast what may be the position with regard to particular factories. But if there are any developments, we will get in touch with the hon. Member.

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will arrange for a senior official of his Department to be appointed to the board of any aircraft manufacturing company which receives substantial financial support from Government sources.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister agree that when finance is provided on a large scale in connection with private industry it is the usual practice for the financier to have the right to appoint a director to safeguard his interests? Is not the Government now getting into that position with regard to the aircraft industry?

Mr. Sandys: I would not accept the last suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. The Government do not wish to get involved in the day-to-day management of private firms. Our position as the placer of large contracts will, I am sure, give us quite as much say as we ought properly to have.

Mr. Albu: But surely the Minister would agree that a director is concerned with safeguarding policy and not with day-to-day management—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—a director is not concerned with day-to-day management unless he happens to be a managing director or an executive director; the main object of a director is to safeguard activities. The organisation putting up the finance ought to have some say in the general policy which is being carried out. Should not the Government, therefore, be in a position to do this with regard to the aircraft industry?

Mr. Sandys: The contracts we shall place for the development of projects will lay down the amount of assistance we are proposing to give and will contain all the safeguards we consider necessary.

Mr. Strauss: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in this matter we are going far beyond anything which has happened in the past? Does he not realise that there must be tens of millions of pounds which will be put into aircraft manufactured by some firms for development purposes? Surely it is proper and responds to public requirements that under such conditions there should be a Government representative—a director or somebody—on the board of such companies which the Government are keeping alive with public money? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? When he issues a White Paper or makes such statement as he has in mind, will he tell us that this obviously


desirable proposal should be initiated by the Government?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who was himself at one time Minister of Supply, is quite wrong. When he says that what we are doing now goes far beyond anything done before, he must have forgotten the facts. We are proposing to take a share in the cost of developing new aircraft. I think I am right in saying that in a number of cases when the right hon. Gentleman was in office the Government paid 100 per cent. of the cost of the development of aircraft but did not put anyone on the board.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this subject was discussed during the last General Election and rejected by the electorate? Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be much better if the party opposite spent some time trying to revise its own constitution instead of putting down frivolous Questions of this nature?

Mr. Sandys: That is just what I thought it was doing.

Mr. Strauss: Is not the essence of the statement made last week by the Minister—that he proposed in various ways to assist the aircraft industry by more financial help than it has had in the past—that now something additional is proposed? Is it not these new circumstances which make such a strong case for taking action which has not been taken before to safeguard the public purse?

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) that what we were told about at the General Election was the great success of competitive private enterprise? In view of the fact that the Government are now going to face the facts in this connection—

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that I am not the Minister responsible for answering Questions? I understood that the question of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was addressed to me—I have no responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is not the Minister. I think that we should get on with Questions.

Mr. Wilson: My question was put to the Minister. I was asking him to take a little time off to explain a few facts to his hon. Friend. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? Is not the Government completely schizophrenic in this matter? Is it not the fact that under D.A.T.A.C. procedure the Treasury has been in the habit of appointing Government directors to almost every firm in a Development Area which has been in receipt of Government finance or help, and that Treasury-appointed directors have been involved in the management of a large number of companies manufacturing commodities ranging from vacuum cleaners to detergents? If that can be done with factories in those areas, what is wrong with doing the same thing in the case of the aircraft industry?

Mr. Sandys: I think the arrangements we propose should work quite satisfactorily.

Mr. Dugdale: I can understand that the Minister may be willing to give large sums of money to the aircraft industry, but is the Chancellor of the Exchequer equally willing? Is this a precedent for giving equally large sums of money to other firms without any control over it?

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member of a Government. I consider that he need not waste the time of the House in asking a Minister whether he has consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer before making a major announcement involving considerable Government expenditure.

Supersonic Airliner

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made in his consideration of the problem of developing a supersonic civil airliner.

Mr. Sandys: I am examining with the industry the problem of developing a supersonic civil airliner. I am placing separate study contracts with each of the major airframe groups and with each of the aeroengine groups, all of


which have, for some time, been considering this problem. The firms have been asked to study the technical issues involved, including the question of the optimum speed as well as the economic prospects. They have been asked also to explore the possibility of collaboration with suitable foreign firms.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister in direct contact with the American and French Governments on this matter, in view of the great importance of it to the whole future of the aviation industry, and is he satisfied that the best way of going about it is to place separate contracts with each firm rather than have one overall contract embraced within his Ministry?

Mr. Sandys: In the first place, I think, this is primarily a matter for discussion beween firms. As to whether we should place separate contracts, I thought that, in the initial stage, when it is a matter of studying the problem, we should have advantage in obtaining the separate views of each of these firms. There is, of course, no thought in my mind of placing two contracts for two supersonic airliners when we have the results of those studies.

Mr. Albu: Are the firms with which the Minister is in negotiation themselves in contact with firms on the Continent of Europe and in the United States so that, if they decide to go ahead with the project, they will have gone some way towards the co-operation which will obviously be necessary on this very expensive project?

Mr. Sandys: Contacts have already been made.

Fares

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on outstanding applications for low fares by the air corporations and the independent air companies.

Mr. Sandys: As I have already explained to the House, I hope to be ready to make a statement on this subject next month.

Hovercraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Aviation what discussions he has had with Ministers of Commonwealth and

Allied countries with a view to their contributing towards the development of the hovercraft for military purposes.

Mr. Rippon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to him last Monday. It would be premature to consider a joint programme with other Governments until the studies on possible military applications have been completed.

Mr. de Freitas: Does the Minister agree that this striking invention with its vast military possibilities is an ideal subject for a co-operative project, and, if co-operation in military applications is to mean more than just a word in White Papers year after year, this is just the type of subject on which we should advance with our friends and allies?

Mr. Rippon: Consultations with other Governments will certainly be considered, and undoubtedly there is a growing interest in the United States and elsewhere. All I am saying is that mare information is needed before the possibilities of military application can really be assessed.

Transport Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for harmonising as far as possible the characteristics of military and civil types of transport aircraft.

Mr. Sandys: When ordering military transport aircraft the Services have been asked to accept specifications suited to civil requirements with as few modifications as possible. This procedure Chas been followed recently in several cases.

Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the reverse process also is carried out? In other words, when a very important civil aircraft is being designed, is there early consultation with the military authorities to see that their requirements are taken into account?

Mr. Sandys: That is also done.

Aircraft Designers

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will establish a Royal Corps of Aircraft Designers on the model of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid I am unable to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors are a body of professional civil servants in the Admiralty who design ships for the Royal Navy. The aircraft for the Royal Air Force are designed by the aircraft industry. There is, therefore, no need for a comparable body of professional civil servants to do this work.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since no one now believes in the value of competitive design or competitive research, but rather in the pooling of design and research, would it not be a good plan to adopt a scheme which has worked so admirably for the Admiralty and which, in fact, would be identical in system?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has grasped the point. The people who belong to the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors are in the Admiralty designing ships for the Admiralty and for the Government. The work in the aircraft industry is done by designers in the separate firms. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be the most keen competition in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands my point of view. The Admiralty designers draw up plans for ships which are constructed by private firms. In order to secure the pooling of design and research, I am proposing that the same thing should be done in the case of aircraft.

Mr. Sandys: But the people in the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors design ships only for the Royal Navy. In the aircraft industry we do not separate military and civil aircraft. It would be quite impracticable to separate the design of an aircraft for the Royal Air Force from the design of civil aircraft. There is very much in each case which is the same.

Aircraft Accident, Spain

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress he has made in his study of the report of the Spanish authorities into the accident to the British-owned Transair Dakota aircraft in the Pyrenees on 19th August, 1959; and when he expects to make a statement as to the cause of the accident.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend proposes to publish the report received from the Spanish authorities. It will be on sale at the Stationery Office on 9th March. I will send copies to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the accident.

Mr. Hunter: Can the Minister inform me whether a public inquiry was held into this tragic accident in addition to the investigation by the Spanish authorities? Is he aware that there is great concern about this accident among student organisations?

Mr. Rippon: There was no public inquiry, but three members of the Accidents Investigation Branch visited Spain and co-operated with the investigating authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Locum Tenentes

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the inadequacy of the present arrangements to employ locum tenentes in general practice and the hospital services; and what steps he will take to improve the position.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Walker-Smith): I am aware that individual difficulties sometimes occur, but I am not clear that action by me would be appropriate.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the fact that so many of these difficulties occur because of the failure to solve these problems at the local level, will the Minister give consideration to the introduction of a scheme for a national locums service, and further, will he consider the possibility of using the trainee assistants scheme in order to help in this respect? For example, if the trainees were given two months at the end of the normal training to do locums and enable them to obtain wider experience in general practice and also in hospitals that would help. Will he also consider the possibility of short refresher courses for consultants and specialists, so that they may come down into the arena of family doctoring, which might be beneficial to them and help the general practitioner in solving his problem of locums?

Mr. Walker-Smith: On the first of those three points, I doubt whether an organised service of the sort suggested would really meet the case, because there are so many and varied personal factors involved in these matters. On the second point, I should like to consider the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman is good enough to make. The third point, as he will be the first to appreciate, is very revolutionary in a professional service, and I think that, like Agag of old, I had better tread delicately.

Dr. Summerskill: While not asking the Minister to commit himself now, will he reconsider his first answer? As he realises, the great majority of doctors today are employed by the State and find it very difficult to obtain a deputy in case of illness; in fact, there is no certainty that they can obtain a deputy. This also applies during holidays. We should at least equate doctors with civil servants so that deputies who can be relied upon are available. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am always ready to consider further these matters, but I was giving my impression as it now stands. We should not exaggerate the difficulties about locums. In particular, we have to remember that there has been a considerable increase in the number both of general practitioners and hospital doctors overall. These difficulties have to be seen against that more satisfactory background.

Doctors (Assistants)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he will establish uniform criteria to be applied by all local executive councils when reviewing the appointment of assistants in general practice.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The circumstances in which an assistant may be employed vary widely and I do not think it would be desirable to limit Executive Councils' discretion in the way suggested.

Mr. Pavitt: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is it necessary to think in terms of limitation? If there were some standard of criteria it would get rid of the present anomaly whereby the method of review on one side of a county boundary is different from that on the other side. Will he consider some means of stopping the exploitation which goes

on at the moment, in some few respects, of permanent assistants? Some general practitioners—a few only, I admit—employ, time after time, a series of assistants "with a view" which remains permanently on the horizon. Will the Minister reconsider the answer he has given?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir, but these difficulties are sought to be met first by the requirement of obtaining the consent of the executive council when a general practitioner wants to employ an assistant for more than three months, and secondly, by the periodical reviews of the consents given, which were introduced by the Regulations of 1956. It is clear that the consents are in no way permanent. They are subject to review.

Invalid Vehicles

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Health if he has now reached a decision on the provision of invalid vehicles with seats for more than one person.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not yet quite completed my review of this matter, but expect to do so shortly.

Mrs. White: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this matter was referred to in his party's election manifesto? A considerable time has now elapsed since it was first raised by the organisations interested in it, and an Adjournment debate was held in this House on 16th November last when this matter was discussed. Does he not think that the time has now come when this relatively simple problem could be solved?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. The manifesto to which the hon. Lady refers stated that particular attention would be given to this problem, and we have been giving particular attention to it. I expect to make a statement very shortly. Among other matters, the ex-Service men's organisations, which have been trying out certain vehicles, have not yet given me their report, but I expect to make a statement very soon.

Public Health Inspectors

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health, what steps are being taken to encourage more local authorities to train public health inspectors.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The improvement in recruitment, to which I have referred in previous replies continues. The new training and examination scheme of the Public Health Inspectors Education Board when it comes into operation should further encourage local authorities to undertake the training of public health inspectors.

Mrs. Slater.: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when this training scheme will come into operation? Is he aware that many local authorities, like my own, which train public health inspectors, find that other local authorities, which take no responsibility at all in this matter, immediately take them off their hands by offering them a house or a little more salary? Should not every local authority be on equal terms in training their own inspectors and taking their fair share of responsibility?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot give precise details of the scheme for which the hon. Lady asks, but when it comes into operation it will enable any local authority to undertake the training of public health inspectors if the Board is satisfied that that results in a satisfactory training. As to numbers, the great thing is to have more public health inspectors overall, and I am glad to say that 214 qualified last year, which is 14 more than the target set by the working party.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give special attention to the training of assistants to look after air pollution, which has so important a health aspect?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's question in mind.

Opticians (Departmental Notices)

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of his Department's notices, headed, "Supply of Glasses," which have been distributed to opticians throughout the country since 1948, and the cost of supply and distribution.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): It is estimated that since 1951, when the notice was introduced, some 20,000 copies have been distributed to opticians.

I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Commander Pursey: Is the hon. Lady aware that this notice is headed "Important"? If all these copies have been sent out, although she cannot give the cost, surely the object must have been that they should be on show'? Will she take steps to ensure that this document is on show in opticians' shops and consider having it written in language for patients instead of language for opticians?

Miss Pitt: It is written in very simple language which I should have thought everyone could understand. I believe that most opticians display it and find it useful to do so.

Drugs

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the procedure for testing drugs and for banning the sale, except on medical advice and prescription, of drugs which may otherwise be harmful; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am considering a recommendation by the Committee on the Cost of Prescribing to the effect that the arrangements for testing drugs should be improved. Restriction to supply on medical advice and prescription is a different matter, in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I already have powers. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 1st February, 1960, an Inter-Departmental Working Party is studying the present law and will make recommendations on any changes which it thinks necessary.

Mr. Darling: Would not the Minister agree that it is about time this confusion between two Departments came to an end and that in this important matter the health authority dealing with it should be in one Department, its own Department, which is now solely concerned with health, hospitals and medical matters? With whatever Departmental committees he may have and with his right hon. Friends interested in this matter, will he consider suggesting that no new drugs should come on the market


until they have been approved by some authority or body, probably the Committee in existence in his Department?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is no confusion in regard to this matter. It is true that in respect of the control of drugs two Departments are involved, that of the Ministry of Health in regard to the Therapeutic Substances Act, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in regard to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act. There is no confusion about it; we are working together harmoniously and effectively.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister take one immediate step, and that is to inform the drug houses, which are hawking their high-priced drugs from doctor to doctor at the expense of the taxpayer, that all drugs should have had a clinical trial in this country? He could take that step immediately.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady is now dealing with the other part of the Question. The original Question covered all these matters, but the question of the hon. Lady referred to tests. She will know of the recommendations of the Hinchcliffe Committee with reference to a clinical trials committee. Consultations are well advanced and I hope to make a statement on that aspect of the matter shortly.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he has yet considered the communication sent to him enclosing a warning issued by the Co-operative Union to the co-operative societies against the selling of the drugs Preludin, Persomnia, Relaxa, Menopax, and Miltown, except on a doctor's prescription or on the advice of a qualified chemist; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 15th February to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler).

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that I have that Answer with me but it does not answer the Question? I ask the Minister to look at the Question, which asks about Preludin, Persomnia, Relaxa, Menopax and Miltown. The two we have been told about are Preludin and Persomnia, but we now want to know about the other three. Does the right hon. and learned Gentle-

man appreciate that even the chemists are in a proper mess about the statements made in this House? Does he appreciate that the list given by the Home Secretary means nothing to the general public? How can we know whether the other three are banned or not? Will the Minister also refer to the Question about chemists?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No one is in a mess about this, with the possible exception of the hon. Member, who sometimes has a tendency to get a little muddled about these matters. The preparations mentioned in his Question all contain substances which my right hon. Friend intends to restrict to supply by prescription under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. The preparations referred to in the Question will be subject to control.

Mr. Dodds: Why did the Home Secretary not mention it last week?

Glasses (Supplementary Estimate)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health if he will explain the item entitled, "Shortfall in payments by patients, shown in subhead I, Supplementary Ophthalmic Services", of the Supplementary Estimate for the National Health Service, England and Wales.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Payments by patients for the supply of glasses are expected to fall short of the original Estimate because fewer glasses are being supplied than was anticipated.

Glasses (Frames)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet completed his review of the schedule of spectacle frames available under the National Health Service.

Miss Pitt: I am aware that some frames are difficult to obtain, but do not accept that the schedule is largely obsolete. When the results of the sample inquiry of prescriptions given in November last are available, my right hon. and learned Friend will be consulting his Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee and the optical profession about a review of the schedule.

Mr. Robinson: Since the schedule has not been revised for twelve years—apart


from the fact that one or two types have now gone out of production—does the hon. Lady not think it high time we had a new schedule more in line with public taste and with frames using modern materials?

Miss Pitt: A number of changes have in fact been made in the schedule since 1948. The review, when it takes place, will particularly concern the question of childrens' glasses, about which there has been criticism, and whether we should replace or drop some of the adult frames which are now becoming obsolete.

Doctors' Remuneration (Report)

Dr. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the strong feelings amongst general practitioners against any sort of differential payments scheme; and whether he will take full account of these in considering the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Doctors' Remuneration in this connection.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have fully studied the Report and its implications, it would be premature for me to comment on its recommendations.

Dr. Johnson: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are very grave fears that any form of merit award for general practitioners will undermine the medical profession and destroy the doctor-patient relationship? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the most serious account of such fears that have been expressed in many forms?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It will be our duty to take into account all relevant considerations when considering the recommendations of this Royal Commission.

Dr. Summerskill: As the Minister says that he and his right hon. Friend are now considering these recommendations, will he bear in mind very carefully the point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) and, when the time comes, tell the House exactly the criteria which he intends to apply to a general practitioner whom he believes will merit this award?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will bear that in mind in common with other relevant

considerations. When we have had time fully to consider the report we propose to discuss it with the medical and dental professions. In those discussions and consultations, no doubt this subject, amongst others, will arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Reading District

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Health what schemes he has approved for the expansion and development of hospitals under the control of the Reading and District Hospital Management Committee; and how many new hospital beds will be made available by such schemes.

Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend has authorised a scheme which will provide 16 additional maternity beds at Wokingham Hospital, and he is now considering a major scheme of development at the Royal Berkshire Hospital to provide a new ophthalmic unit of 30 beds and a general ward of thirty or more beds with ancillary departments. The regional hospital board hopes to start in the next two years a number of other smaller schemes at the hospitals managed by this hospital management committee.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, but does she realise that over 700 new beds are needed and envisaged in order to deal with the increase of 25 per cent. of the population that these hospitals serve, and would she be willing, in relation to the reply which the Minister made to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on the matter of the over- and under-spending of capital allocations, to allow some of the under-spending of the other area boards to be used in Reading to deal with this matter?

Miss Pitt: The question of under-spending in one particular area is a matter for that area to step up its rate of progress. I do not think it is possible to switch under-spending from one region to another, but my hon. Friend may be glad to know that, in addition to the major scheme promised for the Royal Berkshire, there is a number of other schemes for the development of hospitals in this hospital management committee's area.

Houses

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health how many houses let by regional hospital boards and hospital management committees are without electric light or without water carriage sanitation or without a bathroom.

Miss Pitt: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Lady undertake to get the information, as this is a rather important matter? Having obtained it, will she instruct regional boards and management committees to undertake a programme to bring their houses at least up to the standard of local authority houses, where that is possible—I do not mean right out in the country—and provide the money and give the date when this can be completed?

Miss Pitt: Records are not kept centrally of hospital houses managed by hospital authorities, and I have no information about any particular difficulties in the area represented by the hon. Member, because I have caused inquiries to be made. If he has a case in mind, I should be grateful if he would let me have the details.

Mr. Boyden: Does the hon. Lady not think it rather shocking that there should be hospital houses below the standard of local authority houses owned by the Ministry and that there should be no information available?

Miss Pitt: I know of no such cases. In general, houses were taken over before the appointed date to provide for development in particular areas.

Architects

Mr. Boydon: asked the Minister of Health how the cost of employing private architects for hospital building compares with the cost of similar work performed by the architectural staffs of the regional hospital boards.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Precise assessment is not possible, but there is normally a small saving on the cost of the project when the work is done by architects on the staff of regional hospital boards.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the projected larger programme of hospital building, will the Minister take steps to see that the pay and conditions of architects of regional hospital boards are brought closer to those of architects in private practice, and also consult his colleagues in other Departments to see that there is an adequate supply of architects available for training for both short-term and long-term appointments?

Mr. Walker-Smith: A joint review of salaries of architects of regional hospital boards was undertaken in January 1959 on the agreement of both sides of the Whitley Council. There have been proposals and counter-proposals in regard to the remuneration of architects, and I understand that an arbitration is now pending.

Maternity Unit, Corby

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the provision of a maternity unit at Corby was approved in principle in March, 1956; and whether he will now approve the acceptance of tenders and authorise the commencement of work on the unit.

Miss Pitt: Tenders were recently received for this scheme which show a very substantial increase in cost over the approved estimate. Possible modifications are therefore being discussed with the regional hospital board, and my right hon. and learned Friend is not yet able to approve the tenders.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Lady aware that this discussion itself is now two or three weeks old and that the reason the estimates were higher is the very long delay between the original estimates and the subsequent ones? In view of the social and great local demand for this maternity unit, could she use her best endeavours to speed it up and let it be started soon?

Miss Pitt: The answer to the last part of the hon. and learned Member's question is, yes. The tenders which were received in December showed a very substantial increase in cost, more than 25 per cent. over the original estimate.

Broadmoor Institution

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Health what tests have been made to the warning siren at Broadmoor


Institution since 1st January, 1960, consequent on representations which have been made to him that it did not effectively warn those living nearby on that day.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health what is the effective range of the warning siren sounded when there is an escape from Broadmoor Institution; if he is satisfied that the siren is clearly audible everywhere in the area where it is considered right that residents and schools should know immediately when a dangerous patient is at large; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Health whether, due to the lack of public confidence in the escape warning siren at the Broadmoor Institution, he will authorise further or additional escape warning devices to be used for the benefit of the outskirts of the surrounding area.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Except in certain climatic conditions, the siren is clearly audible within a radius of two miles, and can often be heard clearly in many considerably more distant places. It is the best that can be devised, and in my view is fully adequate for the purpose it is intended to serve. In accordance with standing arrangements, it was fully tested and overhauled by the manufacturers a fortnight ago.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister appreciate that, in raising this question, nobody is trying to blame him, his Ministry, or those responsible for the technical arrangements for this siren, but why does he reject the evidence from responsible sources which many people—including myself—have brought to him, that this siren, in spite of all the trouble taken with it, is not doing its job and that what in fact is required is a linked siren with Camberley, Wokingham and Bracknell? Does he appreciate that the real tragedy of the situation is that the institution at Broad-moor has lost the confidence of the public and nothing would restore it more than if this siren were working effectively?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the siren is working effectively. No matter how effective the siren, there is always the chance that some people, even within the range of audibility, will not on every

occasion hear it, but it is the best that can be devised from the technical point of view. It is subject to these frequent tests, and it is also possible to reinforce it by police car loudspeakers within the close radius of the hospital when any incident occurs. While I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in the matter, I think that we are doing all we can in alerting the neighbourhood when these escapes take place.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister consider reamplification by some electrical means on the outskirts of the two-mile area to carry the sound further? This is what is demanded and desired by many inhabitants on the outskirts of the Institution.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have aimed at a radius of about two miles. As I have said, the siren can be heard beyond the two-mile radius, subject to climatic conditions and the lie of the land. I think that we must have some limit beyond which we do not propose to sound this siren. I think that what we have now is about right, but, if my hon. Friend has any specific technical suggestions to make, I will refer them to my advisers.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Health what disciplinary action has been taken consequent on the report submitted to him by the Board of Control on the escape of Leslie Parr from Broadmoor Institution on 1st January, 1960.

Mr. Walker-Smith: None, Sir.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that at this time last week he announced that one of the findings of the committee of inquiry which reported to him was that no patient should be allowed in future to work inside a private house and out of direct observation? This clearly implies that this had been happening. It is generally known that the man who escaped had been used as a glorified domestic servant by the chief medical superintendent. Does my right hon. and learned Friend mean to tell us that no word of his displeasure has gone to the chief medical superintendent?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I explained last week, it is an old established practice at Broadmoor that certain selected patients, obviously a very small minority


of the whole complement, should undertake this type of work as part of their rehabilitation. As a result of the committee of inquiry, I have promulgated the new principle to which I referred last week, but I cannot really accept that there was any negligence in regard to the employment of Parr in this way.

Administrative Posts

Sir G. Nicholson: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the importance of establishing a proper career structure for administrative staff in the hospital service, what decisions he has now come to on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates of 1956–57, and of Sir Noel Hall, regarding the methods of appointing the senior administrative staff of hospital management committees.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have asked hospital authorities to put into effect revised arrangements for filling senior administrative posts which are designed to meet the views expressed by Sir Noel Hall and are in line also with those expressed by the Select Committee. These arrangements include the setting up of advisory staff committees in each region to prepare personnel registers and to advise staff and employers on career and promotion matters, and the attendance at appointments committees of assessors from other authorities. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the relevant memorandum.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the position is not wholly satisfactory? This has been a matter of discussion for some years and there is a general feeling that the arrangements which he now proposes will not sufficiently bring to bear the influence of the regional hospital boards. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that none of these schemes is really very much use unless the influence of the regional hospital boards is considerable.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We sought, I think properly, to bring the teaching hospitals within the regions into it as well and we sought to meet the perhaps natural feeling of hospital management committees that they did not want their appointments to be completely dictated

by the regional boards. I think that we have struck the right balance. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I rather thought that when the Select Committee on Estimates took further evidence about this it was fairly well satisfied with the proposals which I am now making.

Sir G. Nicholson: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is not claiming that the new arrangements are the same as those which met with the approval of the Select Committee on Estimates?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not claiming that they are the same as those which were originally proposed by the Select Committee on Estimates. What I said was that I understood that at its subsequent meeting the Select Committee on Estimates seemed generally satisfied with the proposals which were then outlined to the Select Committee.

Sir G. Nicholson: They are not the same.

Mr. K. Robinson: On the question of assessors, is the Minister aware that, far from striking the right balance, his proposals are an emasculated and watered-down version of the Select Committee's proposals which will be utterly useless in practice and will go no way to achieving the objectives which the Select Committee had in mind?

Mr. Walker-Smith: This was not supposed to be merely a translation into action of the specific proposals of the Select Committee on Estimates. In addition to the Select Committee's considerations, I had the advantage of the report of Sir Noel Hall. These proposals derive from both those sources. While obviously they do not comply in specific detail with the original proposals of the Select Committee, I think that they meet the general point which the Committee had in mind.

New Hospital, West Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the plans for the new area hospital for West Cornwall.

Miss Pitt: The South Western Regional Hospital Board was authorised last July to prepare working drawings and bills of quantities for the first stage


of the hospital. Owing to the size of the scheme, these will necessarily take some months more to complete.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Lady read the Answer which was given to me by her predecessor seven months ago, in which he said that considerable progress had been made with regard to working drawings and bills of quantity? Will the hon. Lady take into account the fact that sketch plans took several years to prepare, and will she ensure that the completion of the working plans and bills of quantity is hastened?

Miss Pitt: My predecessor said to the hon. Member last July that the sketch plans were approved subject to further consideration of the plans for housing resident staff, that a considerable task with regard to working drawings and bills of quantity was entailed and that details of engineering services had to be settled. The plans for the housing of resident staff have been agreed. There have been discussions about the engineering services, but the final engineering plans have not yet been submitted by the board. However, my right hon. and learned Friend is pressing the board to submit them as quickly as possible.

WORLD REFUGEE YEAR

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the decision by Her Majesty's Government to give £200,000 to the World Refugee Year Appeal, what consideration has been given to increasing the amount; and what is the present position in this connection.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I do not accept that there is the widespread dissatisfaction mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who should know that we contributed over £2 million last year for aid to refugees. I cannot say whether or not Her Majesty's Government will make a further contribution to the World Refugee Year Appeal.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that even prominent Conservatives have condemned the miserly amount which the Government propose to give? Does it not emphasise the severe limitations of

the amount when it is known that the War Department lost over £1 million in surplus boots on orders which should never have been placed—at least five times the amount to be given—and for which no one has been reprimanded or sacked?

Mr. Allan: It has always seemed to me that the best thing about the success of the appeal has been the personal generosity of those responding to it, and that is the first thing to try to encourage.

Sir P. Agnew: Without being "prominent", may I ask my hon. Friend to see whether the figure cannot be stepped up, in view of the fact that a country like Italy, whose economy was totally ruined fifteen years ago, is giving £300,000, which is half as much again as Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Allan: I said in my main Answer that I could not say whether or not Her Majesty's Government will make a further contribution to the World Refugee Year Appeal. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Under-Secretary mentioned the £2 million which we contribute for aid to refugees. Does he realise that by far the greater part of that is for Palestine refugees, for whom we have a very special British governmental responsibility? Our contribution to World Refugee Year has so far been from the taxpayer, and is equal to 1d. per head of the population. Hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House speak for everyone in the House when they say that they would welcome at least another 1d. per head.

Mr. Allan: I quite agree, and that may well come from private sources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has been the great glory of the success of the appeal. I agree that a large amount of our contribution goes to Palestine refugees, but they are refugees.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the real problem of refugees is not so much aid as rehabilitation?

Mr. Delargy: Is it not a fact that the British Government have contributed less proportionately to this fund than any other Government in the world?

Mr. Allan: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Minister recognise that a capital contribution now may serve to liquidate the problem of refugees, to get them re-established and save this recurrent charge which goes on every year?

Mr. Allan: My right hon. Friends are quite aware of all this, but there are some months to go before the appeal ends.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the totally unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (BIRTH OF A SON)

3.33 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): In accordance with precedent, I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a son and assuring Her Majesty of the unfeigned joy and satisfaction of Her faithful Commons in this happy event.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Motion to which, did Parliamentary practice allow, every hon. Member would be glad to attach his name. It is over one hundred years since a child was born to a reigning Sovereign. That was in 1857 when a daughter, Princess Beatrice, was born to the Queen's great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. At that time there were many who questioned the value of the monarchy in a progressive age. There were others who would certainly not have declared with any assurance that it would survive another one hundred years.
Through this tempestuous and often tragic century, amid the crashing of thrones and republican institutions alike, the British monarchy has stood firm. Today, the position of the Crown and its hold upon the respect and affection of the people are stronger than they have ever been. For that there are many reasons, but chief among them we may perhaps put the character of Her Majesty and her immediate forebears and the devotion with which they have served their subjects all over the world.
Today, the Royal Family live in the glare of publicity. One sometimes feels that this puts a very heavy strain upon them, but it is a strain which they bear cheerfully because they cannot but be aware that it is one of the strongest bonds between the Crown and the people.
One of my earliest recollections is being taken, as a very small child, to see Queen Victoria's second or Diamond Jubilee. It was a great procession. I was not old enough to appreciate at the time that I was one of a small minority—the citizens of London—who were able to see her in progress through the streets of her capital. But today all Her Majesty's subjects here at home see


the Queen on frequent occasions, in many parts of the island, and many of them see her in person during her numerous public engagements, and vastly more through their television screens.
That was most notably the case at the Coronation and more recently at the State Opening of Parliament, ceremonies to which the great mass of the public were admitted for the first time in history. We can confidently expect that long before the new Prince reaches manhood the same advantages will be open to the subjects of the Queen throughout the whole Commonwealth.
The growth and development of the Commonwealth has brought the Queen added responsibilities. There are few corners of the globe, however remote, that have not received a visit from the Queen or Prince Philip, or a member of the Royal Family, since Her Majesty's accession, eight years ago. Her Majesty herself was in Kenya when she was called to the Throne. Since that time she has made, with Prince Philip, journeys to her people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ceylon, Nigeria, Uganda, Burmuda, Jamaica, Fiji, Aden, Malta, and Gibraltar. We all know from personal and recent experience the very deep appreciation which is felt in so many parts of the Commonwealth for these Royal visits, which make the Crown a living reality, as well as a symbol of unity.
It is fitting that the House of Commons should, in accordance with ancient custom, pass the Motion this afternoon; but behind it is more than custom. It is a Motion which comes from the hearts of all of us. We offer our best wishes for a long and happy life for the new Prince, as well as our congratulations to his Royal parents. We equally rejoice that, in discharging their heavy duties, Her Majesty and Prince Philip are fortified by the incom-

parable blessing of a happy and fruitful married life.
Let the Motion tell them that there is something else by which they can feel strengthened. Queen Elizabeth I is reputed to have told her people:
This I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves".
Those are words which can be echoed with utter truth by Queen Elizabeth II.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition, to second the Motion which has been proposed in such felicitous and appropriate terms by the Prime Minister.
The universal enthusiasm, excitement and rejoicing on the birth of a second son to the Queen is one more proof of the profound affection and loyalty felt for Her Majesty, for her husband, and the Royal Family. Although, alas, the occasion is clouded by the sad and sudden death of Lady Mountbatten, Her Majesty can be sure that the great personal and domestic happiness which the birth of a child brings her is fully reflected in the hearts of her people.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, also support the Motion, and ask to be associated with the congratulations offered to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a son and assuring Her Majesty of the unfeigned joy and satisfaction of Her faithful Commons in this happy event.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SPECTACLES)

3.42 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the success of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services in providing free sight-tests and a substantial reduction in cost of spectacles to the patient; but, noting the failure of some opticians to offer the complete services available under the National Health Service, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to see that the full services are made available to all who need them.
I do not think that the Motion needs any explanation. I have chosen this as the subject for debate in the first of the Private Members' Motions to be discussed on a Monday because of numerous complaints about the whole system of the supply of National Health Service spectacles—particularly the frames—in Hull, where I represent the East Division, and in London and surrounding areas. The hare was started by a falsely-labelled Medical Eye Centre, at Putney, where I live, where a super-salesman sold a National Health Service patient a frame for 11 guineas.
Since then, the bids have increased, until now the firm of Hudson Verity, on the other side of London from where I live, is at the top of the class with the offer of a frame to a policeman's wife at 13 guineas. It is strange how many policemen and their wives are "taken for a ride" by their opticians, because they do not know to what they are entitled. I am to write a memorandum for the Police Federation, in the hope that more information will be available to its members and their families.
Strange though it may sound to the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe that the worst racket—though, perhaps, not in numbers—occurs in the supply of children's frames by dispensing opticians, even in hospitals. The opticians not only do not show the Service frames, but show wrong frames, and non-Service frames, to bluff mothers into buying privately-supplied spectacles for four guineas. It would appear that it is easier for a dispensing optician to bluff a mother into paying four guineas for spectacles for a 10-year-old child than it is to get her to pay four and a half or five guineas for her own spectacles.
I have for three months been making inquiries, with startling results. My inquiries show that the opticians' racket, particularly that operated by dispensing opticians, is worst in the N.H.S. scheme. In fact, certain documented cases may be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no intention of taking advantage of Parliamentary Privilege, and saying here what I would not say outside. I am also quite prepared to appear before disciplinary committees and executive councils in cases of which I have personal knowledge, and I will, of course, forward the documented cases to the Minister.
I have given an undertaking to the Parliamentary Secretary that I will not mention any individual optician by name—firms are a different matter. There are doctors who are advertising all over the place, and they are, of course, wide open, as is the B.M.A. I hope that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, on her part, will not give the names of any patients concerned, or we shall never get anyone who is prepared to complain to disciplinary committees and executive councils.
What is the general position? Parliament votes millions of pounds for the eye service, and Members of Parliament are responsible for ensuring that their constituents benefit from it, but many people do not get the service. Millions of people have had spectacles under the scheme, but what is the number who have not? The chairman of the British Optical Lens Company, Mr. E. Elliott—he has given me permission to use his name and that of his company—informs me that, on the average, over the last ten years he has supplied about 250,000 pairs of magnifying lenses to Woolworth's.
That would represent about 2½ million people but obviously some are newcomers, and some may have had two or more pairs of spectacles. I therefore do not want to argue on that figure alone. Nevertheless, all these people with Woolworth's magnifying spectacles should have been properly tested and supplied with spectacles under the scheme. The Minister should institute an inquiry as to why they have not been so tested and supplied, and decide what should be done. Let the ophthalmic opticians set out their stall to supply these people with N.H.S. frames. The


number of those buying these magnifying lenses will then diminish, and the opticians will do better business.
There might be something of the nature of Christmas clubs, by means of which old-age pensioners could save the necessary £1 10s. 3d. for N.H.S. spectacles. Do not let us be mealy-mouthed about opticians. In the provinces, before the war, they had to go round on Friday nights to collect 1s. here and 2s. there from poor people. It was the only way by which poor people could get their "specs."
A major complaint is that opticians divide their customers into the rich and the poor: give a 24-hour service for privately-supplied frames—particularly for breakages—but take three weeks to treat N.H.S. patients. Today, practically everyone who wears spectacles has N.H.S. lenses, so that the billiard-room remark, when a player misses a stroke, "That's your N.H.S. specs", is just nonsense. Everybody has N.H.S. lenses; it is only the decoration around them that differs.
Another complaint refers to failure on the part of the Ministry of Health to provide sufficient information and, more important still, to provide a realistic range of frames. The Ministry document that says that a wide range of frames is available is nonsense, and is treated as a joke in the trade. There are also complaints about the failure of opticians to provide a full service and, particularly, a full short-notice emergency service for breakages.
Patients are not informed by opticians of their entitlement; the range of frames is not shown—and the six colours provided by the trade are certainly not shown. The Ministry has always refused to say anything about colours. It has left this to the trade. The manufacturers can produce half a dozen alternative colours, but the opticians do not want to show them to N.H.S. patients. Patients are bluffed into buying private frames at high fees, when there is no reason to do so at all. There are others, but I leave them for further complaint and further debate over the years.
The result is that people in the know, who are getting a good income, get what they know they are entitled to and do well. On the other hand, poor people, not in the know, either do not get the

glasses or are fleeced. What does the Health Service Scheme provide? There are three services: first, the normal service; secondly, the hospitals; and, thirdly, the school clinics. I can leave the latter two for further debate, because I hope that, having started this spectacles question, we will get it cleared up over the years. As regards the hospitals, I can say that the eye doctors are doing a marvellous job of work. A doctor is all right as long as he is in a hospital, but once he is out in the hands of the dispensing opticians, he is wide open to exploitation, as I will show later.
There was a man with a glass eye who went to an eye doctor in a hospital for treatment of his other eye. The doctor did it quite well, put a patch on his eye, patted him on the shoulder and said "O.K., come and see me again tomorrow." The patient asked, "How do I get home, doctor?" The doctor thought that he was looking for a lift in an ambulance and said, "How do you usually get home? On your feet, by trolleybus, or have you got a car?" The man replied, "I cannot see." The doctor then took the patch off his eye, and the man went home.
I say nothing about the school service. The main scheme with which I will now deal is known as the supplementary ophthalmic service. To make it simple for myself as well as for other hon. Members, I will refer to it as the Service. Here again, it is quite simple. First, there is the test, which is paid for out of the scheme. The lenses cost 10s. each and the frames 10s., a total of 30s. The Parliamentary Secretary can give us the contributions, but the opticians' idea is that they should provide frames privately at five guineas. They tell people that, with the State having to pay for the test, and the patient getting the lenses for 10s. each, they are doing a good job for them, but that is utter nonsense.
I want to say, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will also say, that a pair of Health Service bifocal lenses, with a 524 H.J. frame—I have not got them, because these are old ones, which I had seven years ago—is the best spectacle proposition in the world, and more people would buy them if they knew they could get them in six colours. I hope, also, that the Minister himself will investigate this matter. I know that he cannot be here this afternoon, but it


would be a good advertisement for the scheme if one could see him in a National Health Service pair of spectacles at £1 10s. 3d. in one of these alternative colours.
The procedure is quite simple. There are three forms, with an alternative to one of them. One is required only when the patient sees the eye doctor for the first time. No. 2 is the prescription, and No. 2A is the prescription for breakages. No. 3 is the covering letter that goes back with the prescription. On the first of these forms, one is told on the back that one can take it to any doctor or ophthalmic optician. It does not work out like that, because doctors are either sending patients, or even putting the forms in envelopes themselves and addressing them, to dispensing opticians, with the idea that the dispensing optician then gets a doctor for the eye test. I will deal with that a little later.
When the Minister tries to say that the patient is covered by the document, I say that that is nonsense. Patients are not given the full information, and what they get in dribs and drabs does not give them the complete picture. The prescription says that it will cost 10s. each for the lenses, and the covering letter says that there is a wide range of frames, but the idea is this. One goes the first time and has the test, and nothing else happens until one gets the prescription back and Form 3. In fact, I believe it is the rule that practically every optician today does the two jobs in one, and, if so, the documents are short-circuited. I do not complain about that; it might be the best thing for the patient in not having to go twice.
When the Parliamentary Secretary argues about the patient being covered by the documents, I reply that the patient does not see the prescription form and the covering letter until after the job has been finished. Patients are wide open and are given no information at all. They are told that there is a free test, that bifocal lenses cost 10s. each and the frames another 10s. What we want to get over to the public is that, instead of talking about 5 guineas, they ought to be taking the public on at 10s. each for the lenses and 10s. for the frames, making 30s. in all. We ought to be providing spectacles for poor people at these

rates, instead of them being asked to pay three, four or even five guineas.
What happens in the case of a general practitioner or ophthalmic medical practitioner when the patient does not want his general practitioner to test his eyes? Is he prepared to hand over form one, or does he argue that he can do the job and that there is no reason for the patient to go elsewhere? That may be a minor point, but the idea of the scheme is that people have freedom, when, in fact, they have got as much freedom as a poor man who wants to get into the Savoy Hotel.
How does the scheme operate in regard to the ophthalmic medical practitioners, the ophthalmic opticians and the dispensing opticians? I do not want to disparage the medical profession, but so as to establish the distinction between the two classes of optician, we can quite easily call the ophthalmic optician the pukka optician and the dispensing optician the plumber. That will make it quite plain to everybody, because that is the position.
What are the figures? In 1949, the ophthalmic medical practitioners numbered 966, and at the end of last year 914, so that the number is down by 50. If that is the case, there should be a greater demand for them in hospitals, and I want them to go to hospitals, where they can be protected from the mercenary dispensing opticians. The opthalmic opticians—the pukka opticians—in 1949, numbered 5,639, and now they total 6,394. Fortunately, the numbers are going up, but let us look at the figures for the dispensing opticians. They numbered 568 in 1949, and are now 933. I will leave the arithmetic there, and say that the dispensing optician is employed only by the big firms. These are quite big optical firms which, in addition to making fortunes out of optics, now want to cash in on the frames racket on the dispensing side all over the country.
How does this scheme operate? I will deal, first, with the pukka optician, because he is the only man who does the complete job, namely, sight testing, providing the prescription, fitting the lenses and providing the frames. If there is an eye health problem, he refers the patient to his general practitioner, and the general practitoner refers him


to hospital. What could be better or simpler than that? Only the B.M.A. doctors and the big business optical firms would want to wreck what is an admirable scheme for patients all over the country. Moreover, the fully qualified optician with a small business, particularly in a poor area, is probably providing good service, though he could do better with better scheme frames. Naturally, he wishes to keep his customers and, unlike the big firms, he cannot risk rackets and lose his reputation.
Yet the little man, whom we all know in the provinces—and, according to the Daily Express, the Tory Party is always seeking to protect the little man—is under sentence of death by the Crook Committee and the Opticians Act, which was passed just over a year ago. It was then decided that there should be three registers and that the pukka opticians' register should eventually be closed. However, I cannot develop that argument today.
I will now turn to the question of the O.M.P. The alternative to the pukka optician is the procedure of having sight tests carried out by a doctor. Unfortunately, the plumber's shop of the dispensing optician is also brought into use by the doctors. I freely grant the choice between optician and doctor, but why go to a doctor for a sight test? The B.M.A. argument is that opticians fail to discover health defects, but little or no evidence is produced to support this argument. I suggest that many people suffer from ill-health of the eyes by not coming into the scheme to get their eyes tested because of the fear of the high cost. Whatever the position before 1948, with this set-up between doctors and plumbers, the National Health Service Act made the G.P. responsible in the first instance for eye health.
When an eye doctor sight tests and finds that eyes are in bad health he refers the patient back to the G.P. in the same way as the optician does. We must have the G.P.; we must have the hospital doctor; we must have the optician; but why should there be a third doctor with an unnecessary fee of £1 1s. 3d.? That is the doctor's fee for testing eyes. The optician doing exactly the same job, and probably making a better job of it, charges only 16s. Instead of the Minister taking money away from pukka

optician, let him take the odd 5s. 3d. from the O.M.P., particularly when he is carrying out mass eye tests with patients queueing up, as men line up in the Army for cough mixture. Gilbert and Sullivan, in their craziest productions, could not have produced anything more farcical than this.
Let me deal with the first occasion on which a person requires spectacles. The G.P. signs Form 1. I want the House to pay strict attention to this, because there arises a serious question whether false documents are signed. I have with me a copy of Form 1. One can obtain copies easily. It reads:
I certify that I have examined you and that, in my opinion, you require to have your sight tested.
On the prescription form which the patient signs to the effect that he has not had a pair of spectacles for two years there is some reference to the possibility of being sued. But what is the position about Form 1? Presumably the doctor must have examined eyes, not feet, in an eye test. I challenge the Minister, and more particularly the British Medical Association, to say whether doctors examine eyes or whether they sign false documents to be handed out by their receptionists without seeing the patients.
I must assume that the G.P. has examined eyes and found no health defect—that is his responsibility as G.P.—otherwise he would have sent the patient to hospital and there would have been no question of obtaining spectacles until the hospital had dealt with the patient. Consequently, there would appear to be no reason for a G.P. to send a patient to a doctor for a sight test. Certainly, there would be no reason for a G.P. to send a patient to a plumber's shop to arrange the test when the patient himself could make his own appointment with a pukka optician or doctor.
The function of the plumber can be summed up quite simply. He obtains the lenses and provides the frames. Obviously, as the price of lenses is controlled at 10s., his main interest is to make as much profit as he can out of the frames as the result of a psychological test of the patient's financial position. Moreover, a dispenser must always be an employee of a firm, because the ring would not allow him to set up on his own in competition.
I now wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question to which, no doubt, she will be able to reply after getting the answer from the grape vine. In addition to the official organisation, we also have the barrow boys in the market. There one can get a frame for £1 Therefore, the only outstanding question concerns the lenses. I believe that at the moment the Ministry has control of prescriptions, and I am not suggesting anything false from the point of view of sight testing. But what will be the position with regard to lenses when the Opticians Act is implemented?
I am told that if I get a prescription I can go to an optical firm which, in view of the profit it makes, will give me the lenses for nothing. So I get the test for nothing on the level, and I can go to the optical firm and also get the lenses for nothing—whether on the level or not I do not know. Then I can go to the barrow boy and get the frame for £1 or less. That is a better proposition than the £1 10s. 3d. for the 524 H.J. frames. Is that legal or illegal? If it is illegal it should be stopped.
Now I come to another matter. Woolworth's frames do not fit National Health Service lenses. But I am told that one need not worry about that. One goes to the barrow boy who will strike a match and heat the plastic; the lenses are inserted, and "Bob's your uncle." With bifocals there is an additional problem of getting the lenses fitted in the proper place, but I am told that that is easily done. This shows what goes on in this racket which should be investigated.
I now wish to say a few words about these false medical eye centres. Anybody can set up a medical eye centre. There is a Wigmore Eye Centre and a Jones Eye Centre. There can be an Uncle Tom Cobley and all eye centre. A medical eye centre is a dispenser's plumber's shop for frames with a room for a doctor for occasional sight tests. Nobody can dispute that. But what is the arrangement? The firm engages the doctors—in the plural—and provides the staff as well as the accommodation for the doctors to attend when they are telephoned and told that there are victims to be sight tested. The old B.M.A. ethics committee of a previous generation would turn in their graves if they

knew that doctors were being employed by plumbers and rung up on the telephone in the same way as one rings up a taxi or district nurse.
Do not let us be mealy-mouthed about this racket. This is an immoral professional association between doctors and tradesmen, arranged by the big optical firms with B.M.A. before the National Health Service came into operation. The object is obvious. It is to try to squeeze out the pukka optician and get all the sight testing into the hands of doctors and the dispensing into the plumbers' shops. If that happens, heaven help us. The plumbers' union side, seven in London and one in Bournemouth, are all the big boys. I will not mention them by name. They are dispensing opticians and are well in the frames racket.
I am informed that in this trade the practice is to work out the price and multiply by three. So that when a woman goes in and is offered a pair of frames for £10, she ought to do the Indian market trick, offer £5 and do a deal, or have a Dutch auction and get the price down by about 50 per cent. If any one of these plumbers challenges me, let him produce his books and appointment records for the Select Committee on Estimates and myself.
An analogy to the medical eye centres on the medical side would be for Boots, the chemists, to label their shops "medical body centres" and engage a number of general practitioners and provide a room and staff for them to see patients there so that they would get all the prescriptions and the profits. There would be hell to pay for this by the British Medical Association, so why not hell to pay concerning the medical eye centres? The title "medical eye centre" is a false one, because there is nothing medical about the place and nothing medical is done there. Doctors sight test, but do no eye health work there. Moreover, the title is misleading to the public and draws in people under false pretences.
Clifford Brown's medical eye centre, in Putney, should be called the plumber's shop for Dr. Dorrington Ward and other doctors who use it. There is no reason for people to go to such a centre in Putney, because there are three eye doctors on the ophthalmic list with addresses there, one in Roehampton, the


second near the river and the third in the centre of the town. The proper place for an eye doctor to see patients is in a hospital or office or his home. Failing that, a room in a council building, such as the town hall, should be arranged.
To show how these Clifford Brown medical eye centres deal with the spectacles service, I will now report upon five of them which I visited. These examples will be foreshortened, because they can be amplified in reports for the London, Surrey and Middlesex Disciplinary Committees, which I am prepared to attend.
I wanted a pair of glasses—I still want a pair of glasses—but I am looking for the honest optician who has the full range and colours, who displays the proper notice and who will tell me the straight story, but I cannot find him. All I wished to ask was whether the optician was showing the notice which I was entitled to see, whether he was showing the frames and whether he would tell me a straight story.
Prior to 1948, under the approved societies scheme, the frames were shown in trays. At the beginning of the 1948 scheme, opticians showed the National Health Service range of frames. Now they argue that it is not compulsory to do so and the Ministry agrees that it is not compulsory. This is a State service run by State money. We should have proper control and the opticians should provide the proper service.
We were getting a better service and, certainly, better personal attention under the old approved societies than we are getting from opticians today. We have now a class of individual with a Prussian attitude to his patients, particularly in the case of a scheme patient for £1 10s. 3d., when such an individual could not care less and will tell a patient to go somewhere else.
None of these so-called medical eye centres displays the Ministry notice. None has the range of Service frames or colours and none has Service frames displayed in the same way as private frames. Salesmen in two shops said quite definitely that they did not sell or show Service frames. In other words, they were not fulfilling their contract.
First, Clifford Brown No. 1 branch, Putney. Scheme patient examined by Dr. A. H. Thompson, O.M.P. 223, who did it in a few minutes and certainly not

in half an hour, which is the basis on which payment is arranged. I am told that no optician, doctor or otherwise can properly examine a patient's eyes for everything under less than half an hour. It may well take three-quarters of an hour.
Then, high-powered salesmen of frames said that only one scheme frame was available. There was no suggestion of colours. When asked for alternatives, he offered a pair of frames at £11 11s. 0d., eventually sold a £4 4s. 0d. pair and took £1 deposit. I have the receipt and the firm's card gives confirmation. There is no dispute about these facts concerning frames.
Next day, I went into the shop. The N.O.T.B. Regulation states that it should not have a hospital atmosphere. Pale-faced men and pale-faced platinum blondes in white butchers coats gave me an impression of a mortuary. Every moment, as they moved in and out, I expected them to produce a body for identification.
I asked for the manager and said that I wanted a pair of glasses. I have had my present pair seven years, yet I was told they would not last. I inquired about scheme frames. The manager said categorically, "We never show scheme frames. Our clients would never have them. They are no good anyway." In other words, "scheme frames" is a dirty expression.
I pressed to see some scheme frames and eventually the manager produced a long tray of junk. Picking up a handful, like iron in the scrap shop, including always, of course, the nickel National Health Service frames to try to put me off, he asked, "Who wants these?" I replied, "I do." He then tried to insult me by asking, "Do you want them on National Assistance?" There is not time to give the whole of the story.
I then asked why he had charged a National Health Service patient £4 4s. the day before and taken £1 deposit. I told him to cancel the order and return the deposit. That was too simple. All he had to do was to hand the £1 back and take the receipt, but he was in a jam with his firm, so he demanded a receipt for overpayment from the patient before he would return the £1. Where does the overpayment receipt come in for a patient?
No. 2 branch of Clifford Brown is at Sloane Square. This is the "posh" locality where one gets the real "gen" and the M.E.C. nonsense on the window, as elsewhere. I am told that since I first put down Questions, the blatant medical health centre advertisement on the big panes of glass has been blotted out and it is now only in gold on the door. There are three doctors' names: Dr. K. F. Mathews, O.M.P.103, Dr. A. V. Stevens, O.M.P.151, and Dr. M. J. Squires, O.M.P.297. No times are given, but the notice says "By appointment". Does this comply with the contract?
The position, apparently, is that the plumbers wait until they get some victims and then, as I have said before, they ring up on the telephone and they clock in. Whether they stamp on the clock, I do not know. Scheme frames are not shown. When pressed, the man at the centre produced a handful of junk from a drawer and asked, "Who wants these?" When I asked him what I could get under the scheme, he said, "I do not know and I cannot tell you until I get the prescription back, when I will know what subsidy will be paid." That is good fiction for a Grimm's fairy tale by opticians, because that, obviously, is a false statement.
At No. 3 branch of Clifford Brown, East Sheen, again there is the medical eye centre nonsense. It is under the Surrey Executive Council. No doctors' names are shown. Why not? If there is not a doctor's name, there is nothing medical. The whole thing is a racket. Only one frame was shown. A handful were again pulled out of a drawer like a lot of junk. There was a big display of private frames, but when I asked why he did not show Health Service frames, he said that there was no room.
Then there was Clifford Brown No. 4, at Richmond. Again, there was the M.E.C. nonsense and the words "Surrey Executive Council". The first blonde I saw wanted to get my name on the book, but no luck. When I asked about the National Health Service scheme she fetched a super-saleswoman. "Now", I told myself, "I really am going to hit the glamour works," and I remembered the stories which we used to hear about certain establishments in the South of France. After being pressed to show the

range of Service frames she disappeared and produced a marvellous collapsible display case. "Now", I thought, "we have something". But the frames had to be produced from a drawer. The hinges of the case creaked. It was empty and obviously never used. The woman apologised for the frames being dirty and she dusted them as she put them in the case. She admitted that they did not have and did not show a range of frames and seldom sold a frame under the National Health Service scheme.
The fifth Clifford Brown branch was at Twickenham. Again, there was the M.E.C. nonsense, but here a different story. The man had all the answers to "Twenty Questions" before I even asked them. It was too obvious to be funny that he did not usually tell the story that there was a free test, lenses were £1 and frames 10s. 3d. Obviously, the "gen" had gone round on the bush telegraph that there was a Question on the Order Paper in the House. He produced some frames. Obviously, the case was not usually used. They were not a range of frames, but duplicates in different colours. One could discover quite simply what business he was doing by checking the 1959 prescriptions dispensed and the number of Service frames issued, but before coming to that I had asked the Minister to let me see the full range at the Ministry. Therefore, I knew what to look for and, moreover, I had the document "Scales of Fees and Charges" which, in addition, gives the range of frames. The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to place copies in the Vote Office for hon. Members.
I realised that the report had gone round that somebody was making inquiries. Therefore, there was nothing to be gained by further inquiries at Clifford Brown's plumbers' shops. If Clifford Brown wishes to challenge me, let him provide me with a pass to visit the shops at any time to check the appointments made and see what is going on. I will give him my word that I will not argue with anyone. Let him produce the 1959 prescriptions and details of Service frames supplied.
I then considered the four pukka opticians in Putney, where I have lived for twenty years. I have nothing against the opticians, dentists or doctors whose


names are displayed in Putney. They are all dead. None of the opticians' premises showed the National Health Service notice or displayed a range of National Health Service frames. W. N. and C. J. Jones, of Putney, is the only one to show the notice "Ophthalmic Optician" on the window. The only other notice is behind the patient's chair—rather like the notices one finds in a small hotel bedroom placed out of sight where it is hoped that no one will see it. I asked whether I could be given a copy of the prescriptions form so that I could see what I could get. But the man said, "No, I am not under an obligation to show you anything. Take it or leave it." Why make a mystery of the service provided under the National Health Service scheme?
The next place, J. W. Timmis was my own optician so I gave my own name. There was no trap, but I did not say that I was an M.P. There was some marvellous advertising here, mentioning such things as "Fellow of the Spectacle Manufacturers' Association", with a display of the arms of the City of London, and so on. This was a great attraction, but it belonged to the guy who died years ago. Therefore, that advertisement was false.
There was a marvellous ladies' dressing table in the room with a mirror in the centre and two swinging mirrors on the sides. On each there were two tiers of 12 private frames making 48 in all. When I asked about frames under the National Health Service and whether there were any on display, I was told that there were not. The man who saw me had to pull the mirror and winkle out one N.H.S. frame from behind it. He admitted that only private frames were on show. When I pressed questions about frames and colours, he eventually produced a "Statement of Fees and Charges" and said, "Here is the whole list." I said, "I know. I have a copy in my pocket, but I want to see the frames." He then admitted that he had not got a range of even available frames.
At the third place in Putney, Hudson Verity, despite restrictions on advertising, there was a marvellous illuminated mock-up of a frame in pinkish colour with the word "Consultant" on shingle. The man is not

a consultant at all. He is an optician. He had only one National Health Service frame and he refused to budge from a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I asked about his qualifications and why they were not displayed on the window. He claimed that there were three categories of opticians—ophthalmic, dispensing, and himself, a consultant, which, of course, is nonsense. He argued, "Why should I put 'Ophthalmic Optician' on my window when Clifford Brown, up the road, does not put 'Dispensing Optician' on his?" Once we get them like that, fighting against one another, we shall begin to get somewhere. When asked about Health Service frames, the man said, "I don't want your business" and he ordered me out of the shop.
Optician No. 4 is the only one practising under his own name and, therefore, I will not mention it. Patients have informed me that he provides a good National Health service with some choice of frames. I will mention only one other London establishment, and that is Kays Kensington Eye Service, 39, Earl's Court Road. Kay is not the name of the man. Only one National Health frame was shown, again with "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude. When pressed about other frames or colours the man threatened to throw me out of the shop.
I pass now to the same subject matter in Hull. I spent two-and-a-half days going into the opticians' shops there. There are 33 pukka opticians' shops in the city and one dispensing optician's shop which is a branch of one of the big firms. Previously, this firm employed two qualified dispensers, but now it employs only one. I made inquiries at 16 shops, which is half the number, because two families have two shops each. Time does not allow me to record the further dialogues and fairy tales and, therefore, I will give a general summary. Only three of the shops displayed a National Health Service notice but one displayed its own notice appealing for National Health cases. Therefore, there must be business in National Health frames.
Practically all had window displays with private frames plastered everywhere, but no National Health frames. None showed the range of National Health frames. One had collections of


N.H.S. frames displayed on two tea-trolleys, not easily viewed, on either side of the room. One admitted that there were half-a-dozen colours in which National Health Service frames could be obtained and, therefore, he provided a better service than most. To get information about the scheme and its benefits was like getting blood out of a stone. One even refused to show any frames until after the sight test. Practically always the statement was made, "There is only one National Health Service frame," and there was always an early switch to private frames at £3, £4 and £5 each.
So it is fair to say that the main interest was to sell private frames and not to show or sell Health Service ones, and especially not to show the alternative colours. The dispensing optician was the only one who recognised me and consequently he answered my inquiries and discussed frames. I make no complaint about his service, but there was no window display and there was no range of frames shown, so that no one knew what frame he would get until it was pulled out of the drawer in a little black box.
Now a brief word about eye doctors in Hull. There are four O.M.P.s, but only one is on the Ophthalmic List. The question arises whether others are doing private work without being on the list. The Hull figures of prescriptions and frame give an idea of the position. In 1959, there were 39,000 prescriptions, but only 14,000 frames supplied, which means that two-thirds were private frames. The reasons for this I need not repeat.
The figures of the Hull Co-operative Society show a different picture. In 1959, there were 6,000 prescriptions, of which 75 per cent. were for Health Service frames. The reasons for this are twofold: a better service and members' control of all services by their committees. However, the Hull Co-operative Society begged me not to advertise for it, because it is getting the bulk of the work and does not want to get customers from other opticians, particularly those which will not provide a 24-hour service.
The 1959 figures for Doncaster are much the same. There, I was able to get the figures for children, which were 1,350

prescriptions and about 1,000 Health Service frames. There is no question but that if the 350 mothers who bought private frames had known that they were entitled to "brown windsors" in addition to the nickel, and in three colours, the majority would have had Health Service frames because, if a private frame is bought, the repair service is lost.
I will now give four examples of the working of the scheme in respect of four Hull cases, two of breakages in the case of a man and a woman, and two of the first-supply of spectacles to a child and a man. These give the essence of some of the rackets in the scheme. The first case is that of a man who had broken the lens of his spectacles and who needed new ones. The man wrote to me saying that he went to several opticians who said more or less the same thing, namely, no appointment for a week. So the emergency scheme for breakages which is dealt with by Form 2A is not working properly in Hull.
Eventually, this man went to shop A—I will not disclose the name—where he was told that his eyes could be tested straight away and that he could have the spectacles by the next day. So far, so good. Then came the snag. The optician said that the patient could not have them under the National Health Service scheme because it might take three weeks to get the forms through. This was quite untrue, because what can be done privately can be done under the scheme. The man stated that he chose an extra strong frame. Why should anyone want an extra strong frame when my own has lasted for seven years? So that statement was nonsense. Eventually he paid four and a half guineas instead of £1 10s. 3d.
However, there was more to come. The optician suggested that the man should have an extra pair through the National Health Service scheme. Now, this is of importance to hon. Members of this House because how many of them have two pairs of spectacles? How many have paid for one pair and have then received another pair for £1 10s. 3d. under the scheme? The House will see the point of my question a little later. That suggestion was contrary to the instructions, which are that a prescription should not be sent in if the patient has suitable spectacles, which, in this case, he would have had the next day.
Despite this, however, the optician sent in a prescription which the man has received but has not used. As a matter of fact, I have the prescription. It is on Form 2, whereas the optician should have used Form 2A for replacement. So let us assume that the replacement was done privately and that this prescription was for the purpose of obtaining a second pair. Where do we go from there? The point is that the optician signed the statement on the prescription, which reads "The applicant requires glasses as prescribed above". Yet the optician had just sold him a private pair for four and a half guineas.
Now, the Ministry has a different standard for the patient and the optician because there the form which the patient signs states at the top that if he makes an untrue statement he may be subject to prosecution. Why should that statement be above the patient's name when he has nothing to gain by making a false statement? Surely the statement should appear above the signature of the optician, because it is the optician's character about which we are concerned, not that of the patient. The crux of the matter is, what did the optician do first—the private sale or the N.H.S. prescription? There is no question that from the first he put himself outside the scheme, otherwise he would have used Form 2A for replacement of the spectacles.
Another important question arises: how was the four and a half guineas made up? Obviously, the man paid for the frames and he also paid the full price for the lens, instead of the scheme price of £1, because he was bluffed to go outside the scheme. Was he also charged for the test? This can only be decided by a Ministry assessor from outside Hull assessing the value of the frame, the lens and the service. The star question then will be: did the optician charge twice for the test? Certainly, he appears to have charged the National Health Service scheme improperly on Form 2, but did he also charge the man for the test?
Now I come to Case No. 2, that of a woman who had broken the bridge of her spectacles. She came to my surgery. She had no documents so I can deal with this case quickly. As she has a Service frame she was entitled to claim for repairs on Form 2A. What questions did the optician ask her? "Have you got

arthritis?" The woman answered, "Yes". "Do you perspire a lot?" The woman replied, "Yes". He then told her that the frame had broken through perspiration, that the scheme frame was no good and that she should have a private frame, which she did. The Parliamentary Secretary is a lady, so I will leave her to comment on that story and will simply ask this question, "What is the life of scheme frames and are specially strong ones needed for arthritic cases?"
Case No. 3 is that of a girl aged 10 who had used the school service and had been given a free test, her mother having received the prescription. Had the child returned to the school service she would have received spectacles free, and what is also important, free repair service. Unfortunately, the mother took the child to Hudson Verity, in Hull—big boys again. She was told that there were only two scheme frames and she was shown two. Now I come to the new racket. They both appear to have been wrong frames. The first was the all-nickel one, which, I understand, should be used only for a child up to 5 or thereabouts, but this child was 10. As to the second one, I quote from the letter:
Steel with a little piece of pink plastic over the top of lenses …
That statement is important, because that frame was not a National Health Service frame but a barrow-boy's frame.
Apparently the mother should not have been shown either of these frames, because the all-nickel one is for very young children and the second was not a National Health Service frame. I understand that she should have been shown a choice of nickel windsor frames, which are nickel covered with plastic, C.223, and available in three colours: chestnut—which is what the mother always wants to order to get away from the "tin-lizzies"—blue, and pink for girls.
As I have said, this is a new racket to me, because not only were the proper Scheme frames not shown, but wrong frames were shown to bluff the mother into having private frames. Moreover, the National Health Service Act definitely states that opticians should dissuade parents from choosing unsuitable frames. This mother was inveigled into


spending £4 when she should have got the child's spectacles for nothing. But even that is not the end of this story. It goes on in serial form.
The receipt was made out on a hospital eye service form, H.E.S.2, Part II, and on that it was stated, "Lens £1, frames £3."Naturally, the mother thought it was all National Health Service—who would not?—but neither the lens nor the frames were of Scheme types. I have here a drawing of the spectacles. Not only was the woman not given scheme frames, but she had dud lenses landed on her instead of National Health Service lenses.
What is important to know—if the top part of the form has been handed in, it can be checked; if it has not been handed in, there may be trouble—is what was on Part I of the form, the part at the top which the patient signs. I have the receipt, and it is interesting. It is made out by Hudson Verity to Messrs. Hudson Verity. In other words, the firm could be said to be giving the mother something which she could cash back against it. This is no laughing matter. Even if the firm laughs that off as a clerical error, how does it laugh off using a scheme receipt for an entirely private transaction?
Now comes the Oscar prize. In three months the "posh", expensive private frame, which were supposed to be superior to a National Health Service frame, broke. The mother was fed up —I am not certain whether the husband was with her at that time or not; we may get two witnesses at one stage and one witness at another, but the documents support the story—and asked for complete scheme spectacles. The optician said, "You have had all you are entitled to", which obviously appears to be wrong, but he was working a double business in the opposite direction to that in the previous case. The snag was that the child had spectacles, and, therefore, in accordance with the regulations, the optician could not send in a new prescription or there might have been trouble.
The husband claimed that the frame had a flaw, and demanded that it should be returned to the makers. But the optician said, "Private frames cannot be repaired under the scheme"—which

is true—"and if the maker does not replace you will have to pay £1 10s. for the repairs." But the mother can buy a set of spectacles under the scheme for £1 10s. 3d. if only she gets out of the clutches of these people. Fortunately, for them, but unfortunately for me, the argument did not go on, otherwise we should have had a good story. The firm agreed to replace the frame. Otherwise, this woman would have paid out £5 10s. unnecessarily in three months. The parents are still not entitled to the free repair service under the Scheme because the frames and lenses were private.
I had decided for reasons of time to limit examples of patients to those three, but then I received another mystery story which I must include as Case No. 4. The man has written that it was his first application, and he says:
I was only shown one pair of frames at £1 10s. 3d. The second pair I was shown, which were supposed to be stronger …
This is a current practice. It is said "These are no good, and they will not last. You must have a stronger pair." The ones that I have have lasted me seven years. My correspondent went on to say that the most was:
£2 10s. 3d. and I chose them.
In this business, when it is argued before the disciplinary committee, the customer is always wrong, because the documents are always on the optician's side, except when I go there. It can be said, "You signed for this. You knew what you were doing." People have, however, signed these forms and have not had a clue about what was happening and did not know what they were signing because they trusted the optician.
My correspondent also wrote:
The form I signed had only the amount of £1 10s. 3d. on it and I was only given one receipt for £1 10s. 3d.
This form should be available. The frames were private and should not have been entered on a scheme form. It would appear that the frame was priced at £1 10s. 3d. which, again, is the price of National Health Service spectacles, and the lenses were £1; but why was a receipt for only £1 10s. 3d. given? Opticians do not deal in £s. They deal only in guineas. Why was not the second pair in guineas? There is something "phoney" here. There is £1 10s. 3d.,


apparently, on a National Health Service form, and the chances are that the transaction will appear as a National Health Service transaction and the firm will dock another £1 on the side.
Having made these serious statements I am, of course, fully prepared to pass the documents in the three cases to the Minister so that he may decide what action should be taken.
I can now sum up with regard to Hull. I have written to everybody in Hull. The Hull City Labour Party has even passed a resolution to send to the local executive council of the National Health Service. It informs me that
It was decided to write to the local national health executive council requesting that every care should be taken to advise opticians practising under their jurisdiction that the full range of National Health Service spectacle frames should be on show and readily made available to their patients.
I received a letter from my constituency Labour Party stating that it was generally felt that there was a racket going on and that members were interested to read extracts from HANSARD. I have written to the Hull and District Trades Council, which represents 80,000 members and their families. We on the Labour side in Hull will get the opticians' racket cleared up. What we want is a set of the frames, plus the scale of fees and charges, not in an optician's shop but in the reference library where all can see what they are entitled to.
I have taken up more time than I ought to have done, but I consider that this is one of the most important statements that has been made in the House of Commons about a Government service. It is a serious matter and it should be dealt with and the service cleared up before the new Opticians Act is brought fully into force. I can give advice and issue memos. It is easy to say "Avoid the medical health centres like the plague." They are not operating the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services. They ought to bear the inscription "Young men and women taken in and done for", because every time one goes in one is likely to come out £5 light in pocket.
I will quickly sum up what I have said, and the case which I want to be answered. Obviously, the whole scheme

must be investigated. It may not be possible to do that nationally, in which case there should be pilot investigation schemes in, say, Hull or Putney. If the Minister wants a wider investigation, he could take the Borough of Wandsworth. The name "medical health centres" should be taken off these false plumbers' shops. We have to ensure that medical practitioners hand out Form I having really tested a patient's eyes or having altered the form. That is the standard required.
I have not set out to deal with the subject in detail. I have too much material and I have come to the end of my time, but I know what is in my head. I would far rather have said this at a public meeting. It would have been easier to tell this as a fairy tale, not having to prove my case.
This Augean stable has to be cleaned out. I have been told that I have taken on a Herculean task. The chances are that I will get a flood of letters, but I guarantee that all those who write to me will have their case dealt with. This optical nonsense should be referred to the Monopolies Commission, to find out where the rackets are. It is a scandal that people with education, who should have a high standard, should rook people who are poor—and I started poor. I argued with the Army about a poor widow and a grant of 9s. She got 11s. eventually, but the first four or five weeks of that 11s. was pinched from her by an optician. This is a scandal of the first magnitude and it has to be ended. I am prepared to devote any time I have to it with the Minister, with the authorities in Hull, or with anyone else. I have not told half the stories of the racket in the National Health Service spectacle supply procedure.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I am very glad indeed to have an opportunity to take part in this discussion, because I had the good fortune two years ago to sponsor the Opticians Act, 1958, and I am now a member of the General Optical Council. I shall not attempt to answer all the very detailed criticisms which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has made. I merely want to make a few pertinent observations. In what was at times a most amusing


speech, he went far beyond the Motion which says:
That this House recognises the success of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services in providing free sight-tests and a substantial reduction in cost of spectacles to the patient;
and then adds:
… noting the failure of some opticians to offer the complete services available …
From the tone and effect of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech one would think that the S.O.S. had had no success whatsoever. One would certainly not think it had resulted in a reduction in the cost of spectacles to patients, and one would also conclude that most opticians had failed to supply the complete service available. That is certainly not the case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have mentioned the word "racket" between 25 or 30 times, which again has no connection whatever with the Motion. He used the terms "pukka opticians" and "plumbers". I am the last person to criticise the honourable trade of plumbing. A good plumber is a very skilled person, otherwise the world would have many leaking pipes; but, presumably, the term was used in a disparaging sense.
The only difference between dispensing opticians and ophthalmic dispensing opticians is that the former are qualified only to supply or fit spectacles or other optical appliances, whereas the latter are qualified to test eyes as well. Both have to pass equally difficult examinations to qualify for their particular occupations. As for the Woolworth's spectacles which he mentioned, and the barrow boys in markets, I remind him that Section 21 of the Opticians Act takes care of that aspect, though that Section is not yet in force. Subsection (1) states:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person shall not sell any optical appliance unless the sale is effected by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or registered optician.
When that section comes into operation—and we had a very lengthy discussion on this during the Committee stage of the Bill—the supply of spectacles by unqualified people will cease, and Woolworth's or any other firm which carries out such operations will have to employ a qualified optician. That will meet the difficulty the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned.
As far as I understand it, in twelve years of the working of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service, more than 50 million people in England and Wales have had their eyes examined or reexamined by ophthalmic opticians or by ophthalmic medical practitioners who, until I came in contact with the optical world, I used to call occulists. Eighty per cent. of these people were examined by ophthalmic opticians and 20 per cent. by ophthalmic medical practitioners. There are stringent terms of service for both, all laid down in the National Health Service (Supplementary Ophthalmic Service) Regulations (1956), Statutory Instrument No. 1078 of 1956.
There is a high ethical standard among all the three participants in the Service—medical practitioners, ophthalmic and dispensing opticians. It is fair to say that there have been fewer recorded complaints against them than against any other part of the National Health Service—which does not tally with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. He said that the public were not made aware of what was available to them under the National Health Service. The notice which he mentioned, and which he referred to in a Question this afternoon, is usually displayed in an optician's consulting room or waiting room but not, possibly, in a shop, because there are restrictions on advertising, but there is also a notice, No. O.S.C.3, which tells the public exactly what to do. Again, I think that the hon. and gallant Member has seen it.
That notice, and the notice which he mentioned in his Question, are in quite plain language. I do not pretend always to be able to understand legal or medical language, but, barring one description of a kind of spectacle frame, namely P.R.O., the language is perfectly plain and most opticians ensure that the patient is shown both the National Health Service range and any other type of frame available on payment.
There were originally about 41 types of frame available under the National Health Service, but about 10 of those are no longer available because demand for them was so small that their manufacture became too costly and had to be abandoned. I understand that there are now consultations about whether they can be replaced by other types.
Of the remaining frames, 7 are children's standard frames and, naturally, would not be shown to any adult going into an optician's shop; 4 are of the "half-eye" type and 5 are for patients with only one good eye and would obviously not be shown to anyone with normal two-eye vision.
Patients deciding to have National Health Service spectacles are told that they have to pay £1 a pair for lenses, plus the scheduled cost of the frame, and, as the hon. and gallant Member said, the total cost could be only £1 10s. 3d.
Opticians are precluded by the terms of service from advertising their connection with the National Health Service, but the General Optical Council is charged by the Opticians Act with going into the question of advertising outside the Service. That will be done in time, when the Council has had time to do the many things with which it is charged. A professional conduct committee has been set up to deal with that matter.
The hon. and gallant Member recounted some encounters which were amusing to him and to the House, but not so a musing to the opticians concerned. He said that he had visited various opticians in Hull, Putney and other parts of the country to try to find out whether National Health Service frames were being displayed. In fairness, I must quote an account of one of the interviews with an optician in Hull.
This is what is said in a reply to a letter from the secretary of the Local Optical Committee:—
We had a visit from Cmdr. H. Pursey, M.P. during the afternoon of Wednesday, 19th January. His approach to my receptionist was that he was considering having his glasses changed, and he sought advice as to procedure. He was asked as to how long ago it was since he last had his eyes examined and on replying that it was approximately three years he was enlightened as to the procedure. He then asked if he could see the frames he might select from the N.H.S. range, and he was shown 10 frames, i.e., 524, 524H.J., 423, 421, 514, 525, etc. He insisted there were others and that they should all be on display. He also asked what the position was when anyone required urgent attention, 'would we only attend to them privately in such circumstances?' His manner and his questions were such that my receptionist thought it best that I should be called to this 'awkward and extremely rude old man'.
Immediately I saw him, I informed him I was aware of his identity and as to his purpose. He again repeated his views that N.H.S.

frames should be on display but I expressed my disagreement, he was welcome to see all the frames if he so wished, but normally when patients were being dealt with, there were many factors that had to be taken into consideration, as to which frames were suitable to their needs. He went on for a little time expounding on what he thought of opticians, and he departed with the remark that he was 'going to blow the top off this optical racket'".
He has tried his best to do so this afternoon, but he has grossly exaggerated the position.
There may be a few opticians not carrying out the intentions of the National Health Service, but, as the Motion says, the vast majority are not in that position. On the whole, I think that the House will pay tribute to the work done in providing so many pairs of spectacles to so many people free of charge or at a comparatively small cost, certainly smaller than would otherwise obtain.
I leave my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make the more detailed arguments, but the fact is worth putting on record that this is a thoroughly good Service doing a thoroughly good job.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I should not like it to go to the country that the case made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is entirely unchallenged from this side of the House. It must be recognised that in his own Motion my hon. and gallant Friend expresses appreciation of what has been done, while bringing forward certain instances in which there have been abuses, or alleged abuses.
I am sure he will agree that we do not want to stamp the whole of the profession with the alleged misdeeds of the few. I say "alleged misdeeds" not because I doubt my hon. and gallant Friend, but because I belong to a profession in which one has to examine both sides of a question and to see that allegations are proven before eventually reaching a decision. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would not want to daub the whole of the profession with the stigma of his allegations.
It appears to be the case that my hon. and gallant Friend has not submitted his complaints to the local executive council, or other bodies which have been set up by a Statute to deal with


complaints of this kind. I have been interested for many years in protecting the public against many kinds of abuses, in particular from abuses connected with the work of opticians.
For many years, attempts were made to persuade various Governments to introduce legislation to put practising opticians under restrictions and supervision in order to bring their status to a proper level, so that they might be subject to certain disciplinary reactions if they committed offences similar to those which have been mentioned. We strove for a long time towards that end and eventually we had the Opticians Act in whose passage the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) played so important a part. The principle of that Act is now being extended to other professions ancillary to the medical profession. I hope that one day it will extend to hairdressers and others who, in their own spheres, have, as it were, the safety of the public in their hands.
It would be a pity in these circumstances if it were to go out to the world that what was intended to be something of considerable value has become subject to general abuse. It is my view—and I say this with the same sincerity as my hon. and gallant Friend gave his opinions to the House—that in the vast majority of cases this kind of complaint does not apply. After all, this is not one of those intricate matters with which we sometimes deal in the House, such as the Rent Act, which people do not understand.
A person knows the possibilities open to him for getting any defect in his eyesight attended to. He knows that there is a National Health Service and that under it he can obtain spectacles. He knows that he can go to the doctor and to the optician. I have no doubt that there are some opticians who abuse the service in the course of trade, but I am quite certain that if the abuse were as general as one would suppose from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said the number of complaints received in official circles would be vastly more than they are at present.
If the abuse were really as widespread as my hon. and gallant Friend would lead us to suppose, I cannot imagine any hon. Member on either side of the House not having someone coming along to his

weekly or fortnightly "surgery" and complaining about the abuse. I do not know how many complaints my hon. and gallant Friend has actually received from constituents, but I am bound to say that out of the great number of complaints which I received on every other subject I frankly cannot remember ever having received one in regard to this matter.
My constituents are very live people. They are on their toes all the time, and they frequently come to me when they want something done. I admire them for that, and I do what I can to deal with their difficulties. I am quite sure that had there been any abuse in my area of the kind cited by my hon. and gallant Friend my constituents would have brought the facts to my notice.
Of course, had any such case been brought to my notice I would have investigated it. In the first instance, however, I think I would have made certain that the optician concerned was given the opportunity to answer the charge before a tribunal prior to being exposed in the House of Commons to a charge which may or may not be true. I think that anyone so accused should have the opportunity to refute the charge or to explain the matter before some kind of tribunal which would then decide whether it thought he was in the right or the wrong.
I know that my hon. and gallant Friend is a reasonable man and will, on reflection, realise that terrific damage can be done if an accusation is made in the House against any individual or firm, even though ultimately the charge may be proved against that individual or firm, and if it is broadcast throughout the country that opticians as a whole are abusing the Service. I think it should be stated in the House that that is not the general feeling.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South referred to the question of advertising and to opticians practising under different names. Section 25 of the Opticians Act, 1958, states:
Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the General Optical Council may make rules prohibiting or regulating—

(a) the use by registered opticians and enrolled bodies corporate of any means of giving publicity, whether by advertisements or not, to their practice or business of ophthalmic or dispensing opticians;


(b) the carrying on of practice or business by registered opticians and enrolled bodies corporate under names other than those under which they are registered or enrolled."

I understand that a committee has already been set up to consider these matters in the future. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would do a service to the community were he to submit to that committee the complaints to which he has referred this afternoon.
I do not want to cover the same ground as that covered by the hon. Member for Wembley, South, but I would point out that many millions of spectacle frames are supplied each year under the scheme. I know that the ophthalmic opticians themselves send out notices and put up posters in various places stating where these spectacles are provided. Much has been done by every reputable body in the profession to make the public aware of its rights under the Act.
I hope that the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the matter in the House today will act as a warning to those who are committing offences under the Act. I also hope that it will be fully realised that the people who have been accused today have not had the opportunity to answer the charge brought against them. After all, if one had known what the accusations were to be one could have approached the people concerned and asked them for an explanation. They have not had that opportunity. If they are guilty of the offences stated, then it is only proper that they should be scourged in the manner which my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested today.
I think that the steps taken by those organisations who pressed for the Opticians Act to be passed will be sufficient to put an end to any such abuses. These organisations pressed for the Measure against, on occasion, strong opposition on the part of the Government. I know what a job it is to try to get Governments to move. I have had four years' experience of trying to get the Government to act in a very much smaller matter than this.

Mr. William Yates: But the hon. Gentleman was successful.

Mr. Janner: Yes, but only after four years of trying. One can sometimes get very disheartened.
I hope that this matter having been raised in the House today proper steps will be taken to investigate the various cases cited. At the same time, I hope that those responsible in this profession will not feel that the House itself condemns them in anything like the manner—or, possibly at all—in which my hon. and gallant Friend did when putting these cases ex parte to the House today.

5.20 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) on his choice of subject, because it is not often that we have the chance to discuss a rather specialised aspect of the National Health Service. I should also like to congratulate him on the immense research he has undertaken, and the pains to which he has gone, in the preparation of his case. Clearly, he has gone from place to place visiting opticians in different parts of the country. But I must say that my congratulations end there. I cannot commend his speech, because he made a number of charges against individual persons and individual firms; charges of unprofessional conduct, charges virtually amounting to corruption, and charges very serious indeed to the individuals concerned.
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman informed my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of these facts before he raised them. If he did perhaps my hon. Friend will he able to give the case for the opticians concerned. Apart from one matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) referred, we have not heard the case for the opticians. We do not know what it is.
Even if we knew what it was, I would agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). If any of us is presented by a constituent with a case of unprofessional conduct he should advise his constituent to have recourse to the defence which exists under the Opticians Act. There are special disciplinary courts specifically devised to deal with cases of unprofessional conduct. The case is heard and adjudged by those courts and if, in the view of the disciplinary committee, the matter is one of unprofessional conduct, it is open to any one of us to raise it in this House. It is a pity that the hon. and gallant


Gentleman did not advise his constituents to take advantage of the disciplinary provisions in the Opticians Act.
I cannot comment on the details of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred. From the general experience of this Service, which I think is similar to that of most hon. Members, I agree with the terms of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion, which I support, rather than with the terms of his speech which was a most ferocious attack on the terms of the Motion.
I find myself in agreement with that part of the Motion which says:
That this House recognises the success of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services …
It is difficult to judge the success of a social service. I suppose that one can judge it by the quantity of service, which it administers—and I believe that over 50 million persons have had their sight examined in the last twelve years. But it is not only the quantity of the service that we must examine, it is the quality. As my hon. Friend said, there are fewer complaints about this part of the National Health Service than about any other section. I believe that throughout the country there is general satisfaction with the Service. On the other hand, I am not sure that within the Service there is exactly the same form of contentment.
I should like to call the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a resolution passed by the Hertfordshire Local Ophthalmic Committee. As my right hon. and learned Friend represents a Hertfordshire constituency I feel sure that this resolution has been brought to his attention. The resolution says:
That this Hertfordshire Local Optical Committee expresses bitter opposition to the recent further reduction in the dispensing fee. It recognises that this reduction originates in the long-standing inadequacy of the current regular National Health Service dispensing fees, in that the uneconomic level of this fee caused some opticians to intermix Health Service and private dispensing (a practice which, out of loyalty to the Service and to the profession, was condemned by this Committee and eschewed by opticians throughout the county). Eventual Ministerial sanction of this practice is now seen to have been a preliminary move towards the further reduction in the dispensing fee which has now been imposed. These Ministerial tactics have sapped this Committee of all goodwill towards

the Ministry and the Service. Only its concern for the public and its friendliness towards the Executive Council officers and staff remain.
That resolution was passed by the elected representatives of the ophthalmic and dispensing opticians in the County of Hertford.
Those are strong words to use about the Ministry with which it is connected, and I should like my hon. Friend to say a word about the proposal to reduce the dispensing fee for what are known as high-grade spectacles in which a private frame is used with a National Health Service lens. I think that hon. Members know that this is part of a tripartite agreement. It was agreed more than a year ago that the fee for sight testing should be increased by 1s. or so, that the fee for dispensing National Health Service lenses and National Health Service frames should be kept unchanged, and that the fee for dispensing National Health Service lenses in private frames should be reduced. I think that hon. Members also know that this step has been advocated on a number of occasions by the Public Accounts Committee and there are, therefore, obviously good reasons for it.
There may be good reasons, which we appreciate in the House, for the proposal to reduce the dispensing fee. Those reasons, however, are not appreciated amongst ophthalmic and dispensing opticians, and if my hon. Friend could take advantage of this debate to remove the worries and misunderstandings which have arisen she will render a good service to this part of the National Health Service.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: When the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) intervened in the debate he showed his usual courtesy by declaring his interest with the General Ophthalmic Council. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) was not as forthcoming in declaring his interest.

Lord Balniel: Yes, he was.

Mr. Janner: I have no interest in the matter. The only interest that I have is as an outside individual. For many years, as an ordinary Member of the House, I went into the matter and pressed for legislation.

Mr. Howell: I hope that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and my hon. Friend will get together after the debate and decide which of them is right. I said that my hon. Friend did not declare his interest, and the noble Lord said that he did. I listened carefully because it was obvious that my hon. Friend was speaking from a prepared brief. He did not tell us from whom he received the brief. It was obvious that my hon. Friend was whitewashing the whole profession, whereas the Motion does not seek to do that. Like the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, I agree with the Motion.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene? I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this matter at all. With the help of those whom I have consulted on this matter, I assisted in bringing in an Act which would protect the public against unscrupulous people in the profession. It is from precisely those people, the same organisation, whom I have for years been in touch with in my other capacity in an effort to wipe away a scourge—I do not represent them—that I have obtained information for this purpose, as I obtained it hitherto in order to have assistance in putting a certain Act on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Howell: I am not debating the Measure which my hon. Friend helped to introduce. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I were to do so.

Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend must not make unfounded suggestions.

Mr. Howell: If my hon. Friend wants to make another intervention, I am quite prepared to give way. I recommend him—indeed, I implore him—to read HANSARD tomorrow. He will there see that he used these words, "If we had known what accusations were to be made, we could have reputed them". He did not tell us who "we" were.

Mr. Janner: I meant the House, obviously. Of course I meant the House. Who else could I have meant? I said "we", and I mean we who are here, including my hon. Friend.

Lord Balniel: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howell: The only party to whom anyone could attribute the "we" was the people whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has been accusing.
If one reads the Motion, one finds there the word "some". That is the point. We may be guilty in this of generalisation. In my experience in the trade union and working-class movement, I have seen the tragedies which frequently occur as a result of generalisation. A scoutmaster goes off the rails, and everybody thinks that scouts are all wrong. A vicar or a curate goes off the rails, and everyone generalises. A few working-class people in a factory are involved in what is now called a wildcat strike, and everyone generalises. This Motion is designed to avoid that mistake. It welcomes the scheme but regrets that some are not playing fair. That is all it says, and that is all I intend to refer to tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West was quite right to refer to individual cases being put before the Health Service executive council. I do not quarrel with that. As the House knows, I was a member of one from 1948. On that council, we had a few complaints. I think one has complaints in anything. I was on the ophthalmic committee and on the dental committee. I will say that we had far more complaints about badly fitting dentures than about badly fitted or wrongly made spectacles. This is, no doubt, because, even if the spectacles are not perfect, people can use them, whereas if dentures are not perfect they cannot; they keep coming back for alterations and, eventually, someone suggests that the matter should go to the executive council.
The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will probably tell us that in every post office there is a notice giving the name and address of the National Health Service executive council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West is very naïve if he thinks that working-class people are fully acquainted with their rights in this matter. It may be that, in Leicester, there are no complaints of this sort. I will be honest about it and say that I have heard no complaints in my constituency. All I have had is letters from opticians referring to the matter raised by the noble Lord at the end of his


speech, the alteration in their fees and the inclusion of certain different types of spectacles.
In other capacities, before I came to the House, I received very many complaints on the lines indicated to the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East. I was able to get most of them settled in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, through the Executive Council, but the only reason that I could do that was that trade union secretaries in Derby knew that I was a member of the council and sent people to me.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South made as good a case, though by no means as long, as did my hon. and gallant Friend. He referred to a letter certain people had written, apparently, in an effort to denigrate my hon. and gallant Friend's case. I shall not refer to the description of him. It may be true; it may not be true. I have never found him to be like that, but I can well imagine someone thinking like that about him if he thought that my hon. and gallant Friend intended to make an attack in this House and wished to write a letter in order to discredit him.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South, in reading the letter, said that my hon. and gallant Friend was shown five frames. The hon. Gentleman had just told us that there are 46 frames, 10 of which are not now in use.

Mr. Russell: I said that there were 41, of which 5 were children's frames and 5 were supplied to people with only one normal eye. Those 10 would not be supplied to a normal adult with normal eyesight. Also, there were 10 which had gone out of use because the demand was so small that they had become too costly. The 41 is thus reduced to about 21.

Mr. Howell: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. If it was 41, then I will reduce my 46 to 41. I have no notes. In fact, I could have been supplied with notes. I have refused to bring them into the House. If I cannot speak on matters on which I am informed, I certainly have no intention of coming here to speak on notes supplied by other people. I do not wish to be told what to say. That is what it comes to.
There are 41 frames, 5 for children and 5 for people with one eye. That leaves 31. Was my hon. and gallant Friend so much out of order in saying to that optician, "Have you no more than these five which you have shown me?" Were the five he was shown the best or were they, as I have known and as other people have known, the five worst? After all, most of us have a little snobbery in our make-up. Everyone who is honest will admit that. When people go to the optician, perhaps well dressed and seeming to be reasonably well off, the optician says, very nicely, "Of course, you will not want a pair of these. You will not want to wear this type; it is identifiable as the Health Scheme type".
Many people have the idea that the only type of frame which one can have under the Health Service is the steel or metal frame. They want plastic or imitation tortoise-shell, or whatever it may be. One complaint I have had—I have no doubt that the noble Lord has had it too—has been from opticians who complain about certain other frames being introduced into the Health Service. Are these frames which the Minister wants to introduce more presentable? Will they be better for the people of this country? Will they prevent them wanting to buy their own frames? I have every sympathy with opticians if part of their income is to be, shall we say, siphoned off because they will not, perhaps, be able to sell the other frames.
My duty is to represent the public, not the opticians. If these frames which the Minister wishes to introduce into the free scheme are good frames, I welcome them. I am certain that, if they are any good at all, the opticians with whom we are concerned in this Motion will not show them to the public, in an endeavour to increase their income by selling private frames.
Some time ago, every hon. Member of the House, I think, was sent a sample pair of spectacles. I do not know whether the best frames available were chosen for that purpose, but I do know that I should not be ashamed of wearing them. Strangely enough, the pair which came to me were very small. They looked as if they might fit a child of about 12 or 14. I could read through the lenses, but I could not manage to fit the frames round the side of my head


or even make them reach my ears. However, I still have them in this building, and they are a presentable pair of spectacles.
There is no doubt, as was said by the hon. Member for Wembley, South, that this firm showed to my hon. and gallant Friend 5 types of frames out of a total of 31. When he asked if there were any more types, obviously the firm was not very pleased. It has become the practice to show types of frames other than those obtainable under the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West could have told us that in Leicester opticians who operate the National Health Scheme have National Health Scheme frames in cases in their waiting rooms. He did not tell us that, and I know why. It is because they do not show them. If opticians wished to sell such frames they could display them. I speak from experience when I say that when these opticians submit an application to the executive council to come into the scheme, the council has to be satisfied that their premises and appliances are suitable. The same applies in the dental profession. I do not think it too much to ask that the opticians should display all or most of the frames from which members of the public may choose under the National Health Scheme.

Mr. Norman Dodds: They should show all of them.

Mr. Howell: Well, all of them. Assuming that there are 41 such frames, an optician need not put them all into one group. He could have a group of 10 such as were referred to by the hon. Member for Wembley, South—5 for one-eyed people and 5 for children—

Mr. Russell: I said seven for children.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman mentioned five. Now we have gone from a total of 11 to one of 13 which is an unlucky number, although I do not know for whom it will prove unlucky.
There could be 13 frames exhibited in one group, 7 of them for children up to a certain age and others for one-eyed people, although I do not know why a one-eyed person should want a frame which is different from that of a person with two eyes. I should have thought it would be better to have identical

frames so that one-eyed people should not be embarrassed by their disability being indicated.
My glasses are supposed to be rimless. My hon. and gallant Friend talked about frames which cost four guineas but my glasses cost me seven guineas. They have a small rim at the top and I prefer that type. When the pair I had previously were broken, I went to the optician. He did not offer to sell me frames under the National Health Scheme. He said, "I suppose you want the same type of frame?" I said, "Yes". I was not arguing about it. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I was not seeking to find out whether he would offer me such frames, because I knew what I wanted before I consulted him.
I wonder how many people know that the frames which they can get under the scheme are not the type—either silver steel, nickel-plated or whatever it may be—which look so cheap. I believe that people are under the impression that the types of frames they would get under the National Health scheme are similar to those issued to members of the Armed Forces. I think it rather degrading that a soldier or a sailor or an airman—although upon reflection I must admit that I have never seen a sailor wearing glasses—should have to wear glasses with metal frames. Perhaps if he wore other kinds of frames the private might look smarter than the colonel, which would not do at all. That may be why other ranks wear glasses with metal frames.
If this debate has done nothing else it may indicate to the public that there are about 31 different kinds of frames from which they can choose. When two friends meet and comment on their spectacles the cost is usually mentioned and it seems to have become universally accepted that it is necessary to pay for the lenses if one does not want the atrocious type of spectacles which are obtainable under the National Health scheme. Contrary to my general practice I am now arguing about something of which I have no knowledge. We do not get an opportunity to see these National Health Service frames. Twice in the last two years I have undergone an examination prior to obtaining a pair of spectacles and I still have not seen the type of frames available under the scheme.


But I am convinced from the correspondence which I have received that they must be something special if the opticians are becoming worried about them.
I sympathise with the problems of the opticians in my constituency, but I am more concerned that people in the poorer classes of society who need spectacles, but who are afraid of the cost, shall be able to get a pair for £1 10s 3d. I hope that this service will be more widely used, rather than that people should use magnifying glasses to read even the racing results, as is so often the case at present.
On two occasions I have taken up the case of a person who, because of old-age or infirmity, has been unable to visit the premises of a dispensing optician in order to undergo a sight test. On each occasion I have been successful in solving their difficulty, although their own efforts were not successful. I can imagine that if a dispensing optician has to spend time travelling from his premises to the home of such a person in order to conduct an examination, he may lose business. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the dispensing optician can receive an additional fee for that kind of service. I have received correspondence from opticians complaining about the reduction in the fees and I am wondering whether any of my constituents will suffer from a lack of service because of the reduction. Are the fees adequate, and are they sufficient to induce dispensing opticians to visit the homes of old and infirm people in order to carry out a sight test?
I welcome the fact that we have had this debate if only for the publicity which may follow from it. But I should not like it to be thought that I consider that the profession is rotten from top to bottom. I have received the finest service possible and good service was provided for the people whom I was able to assist to obtain it. But that does not alter the fact that some members of the profession could provide a better standard of service. I hope that the opthalmic council of which the hon. Member for Wembley, South is a member, will do something to indicate to the dispensing opticians that if they wish their profession to remain respected, they must get rid of the black sheep.

5.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I think that I should intervene at this stage to try to comment on what has been said on this Motion. The general theme advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), was that this is a good service, but that the general public is not sufficiently aware of it and does not always obtain it because of the deficiencies of the opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners, and because of inadequate information.
I should like to say from my own knowledge that the general public is very well aware that spectacles can be obtained under the National Health Service at a very reasonable charge, and free in the case of children.
I think that it is fair to say that, in general, people know that if they choose a frame which is not included in the National Health Service range they have to pay the extra cost. I think, however, that many members of the public may be like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell) in that they know what they want and are prepared to pay the extra for it if it is something different from what is available in the National Health Service range.
While the general public may not know all the details involved in their choice, it is a duty laid upon the opticians by their terms of service that they should inform the applicant that a full service of frames is available, and the regulations clearly state that opticians may not supply private frames except at the specific request of the applicant.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that there was abuse of the service and the word "racket" occurred in his speech very frequently. He also complained that some opticians employ high pressure salesmanship methods to persuade applicants to buy expensive private frames. That may be so. I am not saying that the optical profession any more than other professions, is free from black sheep, or that it does not include in its membership some whose code of conduct leaves them open to criticism. It is, however, wrong to apply a sweeping condemnation of members of a profession who deserve their share of credit


for the success of the supplementary ophthalmic service, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion admits is the case.
The position is that an applicant has complete freedom of choice to go to any optician or ophthalmic practitioner for a sight test, which is itself free. The notices which are normally in the waiting rooms explain the charge for lenses and frames. After approval of the prescription by the local ophthalmic services committee, the patient is again free to take it to any ophthalmic or dispensing optician, who need not be the optician who tested the patient's eyes.
In dispensing, the optician should fit National Health Service lenses in private frames only at the patient's specific request. Deposits may be taken up to the full charge under the 1951 Act, that is, 10s. per lens and the actual cost of the frames, when the undertaking to pay is signed. There is no control over payment for any private transaction for frames. For repairs and replacement of lost or broken glasses when no sight test is needed, the work may be done immediately if carelessness is admitted and the full cost is paid, or if carelessness is not admitted but the full cost is deposited pending consideration by the ophthalmic services committee.
A handbook for ophthalmic medical practitioners, ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians, which was last revised in 1958, is issued to each practitioner. It has no statutory force, but it explains, in terms agreed with the profession, the arrangements under the service. Additional guidance is issued as need arises, again in consultation with the professions. For example, a note was recently issued as guidance in the matter of deposits.
Under the National Health Service regulations each executive council has an ophthalmic investigating committee to investigate allegations that a practitoner has not complied with his terms of service. It may also consider matters not involving such allegations which are referred by the council or by an authorised committee. If there is failure to observe the terms of service, action can be taken in various way, the most extreme being the removal of the practitioner's name from the list. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a

number of allegations. I shall not mention any names—

Dr. Edith Summerskill: How many cases have there been of practitioner's names being removed from the list?

Miss Pitt: I do not know the answer to that, but I will find out and let the right hon. Lady know. I shall be surprised if it is any. I shall come later to the number of complaints.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East made a number of allegations. As I have advised him before, in reply to Questions, it is open to anyone involved in a particular instance to complain to the executive council. So far as I am aware none of the allegations made from time to time by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, including those which he has made today, has been referred to an executive council. Cases needing investigation are few—I think that this meets the right hon. Lady's point—about 25 a year and this shows a very low incidence of complaints. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) said that if he had one it was as many as he had had from the whole of his constituency.

Mr. Janner: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I did not say that.

Miss Pitt: Giving the information that is available to me in the Ministry, I would emphasise that the figure of 25 is against a total annual figure which has now reached over 5 million sight tests plus nearly 5 million pairs of glasses dispensed, and it is a fact that the complaints are rather fewer than in any other part of the Service.
The short answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's complaint is that the terms of service deal fully with the necessary obligations resting on those providing the service. There is adequate machinery to investigate allegations that particular practitioners are not complying with their terms of service. The newly formed General Optical Council, as well as the General Medical Council, have responsibilities for promoting higher standards of professional conduct. Arrangements for informing the public on the availability of the Service have been made and are always under review.
As I told the House, in reply to a Question recently, we are always willing to consider hon. Members' suggestions for improving the information service.

Mr. Howell: When talking about not getting complaints, is it not a fact that we may not get complaints from people because they do not know that they have cause for complaint? If they do not know that reasonable types of frames are available—something like those which they have actually paid for—it may be that complaints do not come in.

Miss Pitt: I think that if people wished to complain about a particular type of spectacle provided, they would readily come forward and complain. Whether they would complain because they have been brought under pressure to take expensive private frames rather than those available under the National Health Service range, I am not sure. As I said before—and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with me—the average member of the public is well aware that he can get a pair of frames through the Health Service.

Mr. Dodds: This is an important matter. I do not think that the hon. Lady has answered the question. When a person has not previously had need to see an optician about his eyesight, how can he know what is available to him unless, when he goes to an optician, he sees displayed, or has brought to his notice, what is available? Is it a requirement under the scheme that the frames which are available should be displayed? If not, how on earth can any person know?

Miss Pitt: The short answer is that the form sent to every member of the public using the Service states that a full range of frames is available and a duty is laid on opticians to make members of the public aware of what is available to them.

Mr. Dodds: It should be shown in the shop.

Miss Pitt: It would be a most unwarranted trespass on the time of private Members to try to reply to the many detailed points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East. I shall go through his speech later and, where I am able to add to the information, I

shall do so by writing to him. Meanwhile, there are some points to which I can reply.
There is the question of not exhibiting the Ministry of Health notice. These notices were introduced in 1951 and sent to all ophthalmic medical practitioners and opticians. A revised notice was issued in 1958 and executive councils arranged a supply to opticians as necessary. Most opticians are believed to display this notice, or notices provided by their associations.
In reply to a Question on 8th February, I undertook to examine the situation in the four areas mentioned then by the hon. and gallant Member and mentioned again by him today. The examination promised has taken place. In southwest London the council arranged an informal visit to 131 premises. It found 81 displayed the notice and the remaining 50 willingly accepted another copy for display. In Putney, four out of the five opticians quoted already displayed copies of the notice. As the hon. and gallant Member said they did not display it, I can only think that he did not penetrate to the waiting rooms where the notice is normally displayed. Middlesex and Surrey were found to be too large areas for a full survey but informal inquiries through the executive council confirm that most opticians display the notice. It now emerges that the hon. and gallant Member visited only three branches of the particular firm he has mentioned this afternoon. That firm has asked, during the last few days, for extra copies and there has been a demand from other firms. In Hull, of the 34 premises mentioned 22 displayed notices and copies have been requested at some of the remainder.
In reply to a supplementary question by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I gave an undertaking to consider whether display of the notice should be made compulsory. It would require an amendment of the terms of service, which do not generally impose such detailed requirements. While opticians may find the notice useful and welcome a reminder of its existence, I think that it would be out of keeping with their professional status to require compulsion. In many parts of the executive councils' services notices are provided explaining, for instance, dental and prescription charges,


but none of these is compulsory, and to single out the optical profession for compulsion—a profession newly given the status of registration—would be highly resented.
There has been considerable discussion on both sides of the House on the question of frames for children. There are seven, metal with plastic coverings. Two are specially for very young children. All these are free of charge. There is a choice of 34 other frames, of which 13 are suitable for children. Some are for very special cases and about 10 have become so little used that they are difficult for opticians to supply, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).
The range of frames was last reviewed by the Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee, in 1957. A fresh review is being made from prescriptions given in November last, including repairs and replacements. The data collected will now be put before the Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee for advice. I want to make clear that the review is not intended to encroach on private trade. Since 1948, the purpose of the National Health Service has been to provide a reasonable choice in hardwearing types of spectacles capable of being mass-produced, but excluding luxury articles. The proposed review continues the principle that the Service should not follow the vagaries of fashion.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: While I do not think that anyone suggests that the Service should follow the vagaries of fashion, does the hon. Lady appreciate that at the moment the National Health Service frames are pitifully unfashionable and, therefore, is there not a reason for changing them?

Miss Pitt: I am aware that there is pressure, especially from teen-agers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is one of the things we are prepared to accept. I am glad that at least one other colour—blue, my favourite colour—has been introduced. There are two main aspects for review, little-used frames—whether to drop or replace them—and reconsideration of children's frames.
On the question of ophthalmic medical practitioners, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member, since 1950 executive councils have co-operated with

hospital authorities to ensure that no full-time hospital medical officers have their names on ophthalmic lists. The hon. and gallant Member raised the question of ophthalmic medical practitioners serving at medical eye centres, which he said were falsely labelled. That is not so. This last term is used by the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board Association. It is not part of the official terminology of my Ministry, but its use involves no breach of the terms of service. It is, in fact, part of the past history of the former National Health Insurance and a high proportion of ophthalmic medical practitioners work at these centres. I should stress that the patient is free to have a sight test by the ophthalmic medical practitioner and to take the prescription anywhere he likes for dispensing.
Advertising in connection with the National Health Service is prohibited by the terms of service. The General Optical Council will no doubt be making rules on the subject of advertising covering all professional work of opticians and the General Medical Council already has rules covering doctors. The professional associations also take an interest in blatant advertising and complaints should be addressed to them.
As I said, there may be some delay in the case of breakages if people do not discharge the charge in advance. Probably the three weeks mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member is the time needed by the ophthalmic services committee to decide whether breakage is due to carelessness and a consequent charge. Obviously, where carelessness is admitted and the patient pays the cost, the optician may proceed without delay, as in those cases where the full cost is deposited subject to refund where the committee considers it justified.
I want to say a word or two about opticians' remuneration, which was specifically raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). He quoted from reports he had had from the Hertfordshire local optical committee. The position is that the Optical Whitley Council negotiates and recommends to Ministers the fees which should be paid. I shall not go into the past history of opticians' fees. The current fees were introduced only after a fact-finding inquiry and were calculated to


reflect changes in the cost of living. I am aware of the feeling of opticians and the disquiet they feel at the recent reduction of 20 per cent. in fees when National Health Service lenses are dispensed in private frames, what is commonly called a hybrid fee.
I am glad of the opportunity of explaining the position. The fees payable to opticians working for the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service for sight testing and the dispensing of glasses have been the subject of negotiations on the Optical Whitley Council, and the possibility of a hybrid fee was first discussed in June, 1956. Subsequently, full consideration was given to all the relevant circumstances, including the report of the working party under the chairmanship of Mr. William Penman into the average time taken to test sight, fit and supply glasses, and the factual information obtained from a detailed inquiry undertaken in 1956 into the expenses of opticians' establishments engaged in working for the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services.
The figures obtained from the inquiry were in respect of the last year of accounts then available, and an adjustment was included in the calculation to relate the fees to the level of expenses operative at the time the first order of revised fees was made to the opticians.
Following these negotiations, an offer was made and accepted by the opticians at the end of 1958 which provided for an increase in the average sight testing fee from 14s. 2d. to 16s. 3d., for the average dispensing fee when National Health Service lenses are dispensed in Health Service frames to remain at the same level of 26s. 6d. and for the dispensing fee when private frames are used to be reviewed on the basis of a 20 per cent. cut.

Mr. Howell: When the hon. Lady says that it was accepted by the opticians, does she refer to the Association of Optical Practitioners, or to the Whitley Council?

Miss Pitt: It was accepted by the opticians represented on the Whitley Council.
There is an element in the National Health Service fees paid for dispensing which represents the time taken for the

selection, measurement and ordering of the frames. It is not considered right that where a private frame is chosen this element in the transaction should be paid for through the Health Service. I should point out here, although I think that it is fairly well known to opticians and to those Members who interest themselves in this branch of the Health Service, that fees are paid to opticians for sight testing and dispensing. It is these fees which contain the profit to the optician. In addition, the cost of the lenses and frames supplied is reimbursed to them based on the standard list price of the main supplying firms, plus an allowance of 5 per cent. to cover breakages and miscellaneous expenses. There is no element of profit in the reimbursement.
It should be remembered, too, that this type of hybrid dispensing, which is now attracting the reduced dispensing fees, did not exist as such during the early years of the National Health Service, when it was not the practice to fit Health Service lenses into new private frames. The matter of the abatement of the fee when Health Service lenses are dispensed in private frames was discussed by the Whitley Council on 20th February, 1959. Subsequently, the Ministers gave most careful consideration to the views put forward by the opticians' organization, but, nevertheless, they did not feel able to change their view on the principle involved or to defer the introduction of a differential fee.
Although, as I have said, remuneration is a matter for negotiation on the Optical Whitley Council, failing agreement, the final decision on what can be paid from Exchequer funds rests with the Ministers of Health who are responsible to Parliament for the proper expenditure of public funds. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the fee for hybrid dispensing is part of a tripartite offer and that part which benefited opticians—the increased sight testing fee—came into effect on 1st January, 1959.
The hybrid fee was introduced on 1st January this year. Before any future consideration of a revision of fees can be undertaken, it is necessary to have satisfactory factual information on which negotiations can be based. The Optical Whitley Council has not yet been formally asked to submit proposals, but a series of informal discussions have


been held with representatives of opticians with a view to agreeing the basis of necessary inquiries, and suggestions arising from these meetings will be referred to the Optical Whitley Council.
I now turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr about people being visited in their own homes. If an optician visits a person in his own home, he is not paid a fee from the National Health Service. An optician is not required to make domiciliary visits, but if he decides to do so in an individual case he may make a charge privately.

Mr. Howell: I owe a debt of gratitude to the opticians in Birmingham who do that, apparently, without any fee. However, does the hon. Lady think that it is being fair to the old people, who have contributed so much to the prosperity of this country, that they should not have it if they cannot get out to be examined?

Miss Pitt: The debt which the hon. Gentleman acknowledges would be fairly widely acknowledged throughout the country. I can quote other areas of Birmingham where opticians visit old people in their homes. It is part of the credit which is due to opticians.
I now return to the Motion. To the extent that it calls upon the House to recognise the success of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services, I welcome it. But I think that the part of the Motion referring to
the failure of some opticians to offer the complete services
is more widely drawn than is warranted. The hon. and gallant Member amplified this by devoting a great deal of his time to wide-ranging criticism, which I must, is fairness, say is not deserved by the general body of those who have contributed to the success of the Service.
In recent months, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has devoted himself, with single-minded purpose, to the question of the supply of National Health Service spectacles.

Commander Pursey: I shall go on doing it.

Miss Pitt: His numerous Questions and the debate today will, no doubt, serve to remind the public of the facilities available, and I think that it will also serve as a reminder to opticians of

their terms of service, as is evidenced by the fact that we have been asked to provide fresh copies of the notice. We believe that the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services is a good one, but we are always ready, in consultation with the professions, to consider ways of making it even better.
The latter part of the Motion calls upon the Government to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to see that the full services are made available to all who need them. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will accept my assurance that we are prepared to explore, in consultation with the profession, what can be done to improve the supply of information to the public, particularly as to the range of spectacles which they can obtain through the National Health Service. Nor would strengthening of the terms of service be excluded from this review if, in the event, it seemed desirable, but other steps must be considered first.

6.17 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was fortunate in the Ballot and decided to give us this opportunity of speaking on the ophthalmic services. We should all be grateful to him for that. He spoke in his lusty nautical manner, and I must congratulate him on holding the attention of the House for over an hour. People who adopt a lusty nautical manner are not always popular, and the result is that some hon. Members have criticised my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing to the notice of the House certain people who he believed were infringing the regulations of the ophthalmic service.
It is, however, significant that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, in her final remarks, said that this debate had served a very useful purpose. It has. It has focussed the attention of the House, of the country and of opticians on the terms of service of the ophthalmic service and on the rights of the poorest people to obtain spectacles at a reduced fee. For this reason, I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend. After all, this House is a place where we endeavour to ventilate grievances.
I want to refer to only two things which the hon. Lady mentioned. She said that there had been no complaints.

Miss Pitt: indicated dissent.

Dr. Summerskill: She said that there have been very few complaints of the kind which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned. This may seem a curious analogy, but I think that it is a correct analogy. The hon. Lady said that poor people who found that they were not able to obtain spectacles at 30s. and had to spend a few pounds on them have not complained. I would remind the hon. Lady that each Monday Questions are put to her and to her right hon. and learned Friend concerning, let us say, maternity accommodation. How many mothers, the people who suffer, ever complain? It is officials and the public who complain, and Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, Monday after Monday, come here and say to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. and learned Friend, "When will you make provision for women unable to obtain maternity beds?" The expectant mothers do not. The sufferers do not. It is for us to ventilate their grievances in the House.
My hon. Friend has ventilated grievances. Some of them may be proved to be unfounded, but he has nevertheless stimulated thought in the House. He has compelled Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and answer for their Departments. I am certain that, in consequence, action will be taken. The hon. Lady told my hon. and gallant Friend that there had been no complaints. It is significant that since notice was given in the newspaper that this debate was to take place the shops to which he referred have written to her Department very quickly and asked for the notices which he complains were not shown. Can the hon. Lady say that my hon. and gallant Friend was unjustified in coming here and making these complaints in the very strong manner in which he did?

Miss Pitt: I intervene only to give the right hon. Lady the answer to the interjection she made during my speech. It has a bearing on what she is now saying about complaints. From 5th July, 1948, namely, the beginning of the Service, to 31st December, 1958, there were sixteen cases concerning opticians before the tribunal. In seven cases opticians were disqualified from practising. Three opticians resigned and undertook not to practise. Though complaints are few

in number, people who have cause to complain obviously take the necessary steps.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady cannot have been listening to me. I have been trying to prove—I am sure that the House has followed me—that very often the person who has a grievance is humble and poor and does not know where to complain. A housewife who goes into a little shop in one of the large London suburbs and finds that, instead of spending 30s;. on a pair of spectacles, she has spent £2 or £3, comes out and says to herself, "I have to economise in some other way". It never occurs to her that there is a body to which she can complain. If it does occur to her, she certainly does not know how to go about it. The hon. Lady's statement that there are only a certain number of complaints rather proves my point.
One statement by the hon. Lady absolutely shocked me. When my hon. Friend suggested that opticians should be compelled to put up a certain poster telling people in more detail what their rights are, the hon. Lady said—I think that HANSARD will prove me correct—that she could not ask opticians to do this as they would feel that it was unprofessional if they were compelled to do something. Does she not realise that in the great National Health Service doctors are subject to compulsion and regulation of the strictest character? If doctors fail to observe the regulations, there are disciplinary committees, both local and central, which will discipline them in the harshest manner and, in the final resort, by striking them off the register.
Can the hon. Lady from her position say that no professional person should be compelled to do something? The whole difference between a profession and a trade is that a profession has a discipline which its members must observe. It has higher ethical standards. If they are not observed, a professional person may find that he is even deprived of his livelihood. It is absurd for the hon. Lady to tell my hon. Friend that because opticians are now registered they would be hurt and offended as professional people if they were compelled to observe a regulation. She should once again look at the regulations which doctors in the National Health Service are


compelled to observe, and, indeed, recognise it as their duty to observe.

Miss Pitt: We must have this clear for the record. Perhaps the right hon. Lady did not understand what I said to the House. I said that neither pharmacists nor dentists were compelled to exhibit the list of charges and that I thought that opticians would think it unreasonable if compulsion were applied in their case. They should be compelled to abide by the other regulations of the Service, but that is a much wider point than the one about which we are now talking.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady has already conceded the point. A charge is stated in the leaflet which she has described as generally being put up in the waiting rooms, and that is where I have seen it. It mentions a charge of 10s. for a lens.
I shall make some constructive suggestions which I believe every honest optician in the country will welcome. If it is conceded that a leaflet mentioning a charge of 10s. for a lens is already displayed, why should not the ordinary person be told that it is possible for him to get full spectacles for 30s.?

Mr. Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that dentists exhibit notices? I went to a dentist this morning. I saw in the waiting room a notice stating that I had to pay £1 before I could receive any treatment. Dentists have to put up notices of charges.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly. I have never heard a dentist object to doing that. In the world of optics and ophthalmology there are some people who do not recognise a high ethical standard. I hope the hon. Lady will examine every case that my hon. Friend has put to her this afternoon, because it is said that he has not given these cases to the Ministry before but has ventilated them in the House. He has now given particulars to the Ministry and I hope that they will all be examined.
It was originally intended that the ophthalmic service should be based on the hospitals. The present arrangement, which has been described this afternoon, of using opticians working from their own premises has proved successful, although many people said that that was the wrong way to approach the matter.

Also, a statutory register of opticians has now been established, and these arrangements should be made permanent. They should comprise the next step. In a few years' time we may say that there should be another approach, but for the time being this should be a permanent arrangement.
Opticians should be represented on local executive councils. Hospital ophthalmic specialists should inform opticians of their findings in cases referred to them, in the same way as they now inform general practitioners. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear that in mind. The Guillebaud Report on Medicine recommended this. Guillebaud rightly said that if an ophthalmic optician outside a hospital sent a case to a consultant at a hospital he deserved recognition just as much as a general practitioner. All these are important points, because if opticians are recognised in this way, it will raise their status.
The whole question of eye strain in industry is such that ophthalmologists and opticians should be closely associated with an industrial health centre. I detailed just now arrangements which should be made permanent, but I feel that the final objective should be a salaried service for opticians working in a health centre. Being able to see properly is a very important part of life. If we are to have a comprehensive health centre, an optician should play his part in it. This is the kind of constructive approach we want if we are to give opticians more self-respect and the feeling that they are members of a great profession and so cannot stoop to any of the infringements of which we have heard today.
We have heard of the procedure. I will remind the House how wrong the present procedure is and how it invites unscrupulous opticians to exploit the situation. After the patient has had the eyesight test, the optician sends form O.S.C.2 to the executive council for approval. At that stage, nothing should have been discussed about frames, charges, deposits or any of these material matters. There should be just the professional approach to the patient's eyes. The optician—and the ophthalmic optician, of course—is the person who can tell whether there is any pathological complaint. If there is something pathological, the patient is sent to the hospital.


But, at the stage when the form is sent to the Executive Council, nothing further should be done.
The patient is then told that he can have glasses. At this stage, of course, frames can be discussed. Paragraph 2 of the form that is sent to the patient says:
You may now take it to any ophthalmic optician or dispensing optician who has undertaken the supply of glasses under the National Health Service.
Paragraph 5 says:
There is a wide range of efficient spectacle frames approved by the Minister of Health for National Health Service dispensing.
On the back of the form are given the prices of lenses—but only those prices. That means nothing to the ordinary patient. To tell the ordinary patient the price of the lens conveys nothing to him or her. Patients want to know precisely the cost of the spectacles.
The patient then takes the prescription to the dispensing optician, and then, of course, costs, frames, how the spectacles are to be paid for, and so on, are discussed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady expressed herself a little wrongly, but I must confess that, listening to hon. Members, I gained the impression that they think there are literally 41 types of frame. That, of course, is not so. There are only two basic types of frame—the metal, and the tortoiseshell-type frame. All the others are combinations and permutations of these two types.
It is true that 41 frames are listed in the ophthalmic schedule, but I think that hon. Members have been misled into believing that there are a large number of frames available. These, of course, are only different fittings—different little pieces on the sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell) talked of his glasses not fitting properly. Had he chosen one of the 41 they might have fitted properly. I say that there are only two basic types—and the hon. Lady does not dissent—the metal frame and the tortoiseshell-type frame.
Over the last eleven years, fashions have changed. Women's skirts have shortened, women's skirts have lengthened—they have become wider or narrower—but what has happened with spectacles? They have remained precisely the same. I ask the House: why should a State service article be dreary,

and unattractive and out of date? Faces and eyes are of different shapes, and complexions vary. We all have a streak of vanity. Hon. Members opposite, whether they be male hon. Members or female hon. Members, have their streak of vanity and are very sensitive about what they put on to their faces.
It would be very surprising, therefore, if people did not succumb to the high-pressure salesman who offers an attractive pair of spectacles—but having succumbed, they are called on to pay the price. We have been told today that those prices can be up to £10. I should like to know what is the costly ingredient—and these are some of the things we should have been told—in all these varieties for which people pay these large sums.
I should like the hon. Lady to visit Woolworth's some time. I visited Woolworth's last week and tried on two pairs of spectacles; one with a half rim and another in coloured plastic shaped to give the wearer that oriental appearance beloved of young women today. It may be said, "What are you asking for? We cannot keep pace with all these fashions." I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that these delightful looking young women to whom she referred find that type of spectacles most attractive. It used to be said that men never made passes at girls with glasses, but with the new types of glasses I think the position is completely changed. The price of these frames in Woolworth's this week is 6s. 9d. Why, therefore, have the National Health Service shapes not been changed for eleven years?
Children are supposed to receive their spectacles free, but they look at these metal spectacles and find them unattractive. Children of ten or eleven years can be very sensitive about their appearance. If they choose one from the adult range, the parents must pay £1 11s. That seems grossly unfair.
The fact is that 40 per cent. of patients pay for glasses outside the National Health Service. Why is that? I expect that some people will tell me that I am asking for a luxury, but I hope that, in mentioning the prices at Woolworth's—and, incidentally, I also looked at similar glasses at a cheap little jewellery place, and those were about 12s.—I have proved to the House that


it would not be a luxury to provide our people with delightful-looking spectacles at the same price that they are invited to pay now.
I must confess that I share with the hon. Lady a liking for blue. No one can say that these spectacles are exotic, extravagant or very attractive. They are owl-like, but they are blue. Incidentally, her right hon. Friend wears pink spectacles—no doubt he needs them to be a little rosy-tinted. When I said that I wanted a plain pair of glasses—this frame has a simple nickel hinge—I was told that blue frames were not in the National Health Service. The whole thing is becoming ridiculous. No wonder that many opticians are tempted to exploit the service and to sell expensive glasses to many people who cannot afford them.
As I have said, I want to be constructive. I believe that if the Department will do these two things it will remove the abuses that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East has so ably described to the House. I want to make two specific recommendations. The great advance in frame design and colour should be recognised, and there should be more basic types—"basic types" is the term—added to the metal and the tortoiseshell-type frame now in the Schedule.
Secondly, it should be compulsory for opticians to exhibit a card in their windows for the guidance of patients. I agree that we have already heard that the Ministry has a small showcard which gives information about the dispensing of spectacles, but, while it mentions the charges payable towards the provision of new lenses, it does not include the possible charge for complete pairs.
I would suggest the insertion on this card of something in the following terms: "A selected range of spectacle frames is available to the public through the National Health Service at controlled charges. When a complete pair of spectacles is provided, the charge to the patient will range from 24s. 8d. to 42s. 2d., according to the type of frame".
I believe that every honest optician in the country will be delighted to do that, and that if, as the Minister suggests, they accept a form of words for this purpose, it would deprive those few men who exploit the public, rather mercilessly,

because they are playing on the vanity of the people, of their opportunities, and that we should soon find that they would change their tactics.

Sir John Barlow: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I think the House very much appreciates the service rendered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) in bringing this subject before the House today. We all know that the real problem of the Walfare State is the difficulty which ordinary people have in finding out what their rights are, and, even more important, in knowing where to go with their complaints. I think it is a great pity that we should have had to have a debate based on and caused largely by the feelings and sufferings of a large number of people over a Service which is meant for all of them.
Many of us, I think it is fair to say, on both sides of the House regret the fact that since its inception, the Service has departed a very long way from its original intention. I think that one of the most tragic features of this debate is that, after twelve years of the National Health Service, we have sat here this afternoon hearing Members talking about people buying spectacles in Woolworth's and chain stores. It is generally accepted today that the self-medication which existed before the National Health Service was introduced was certainly of no value to the people who practised it, and certainly was a disgrace to this country. For that reason, it was the intention of this House that, so far as could be provided, good health was a right of every person living in this country. One of the biggest problems was that for many years people had been unable, purely because of the cost, to avail themselves of the possibilities of spectacles and enjoy the occupation of reading.
When the National Health Service came into being, there was an immediate uproar and series of complaints because the biggest part of the cost of the Service was in the field of the provision of spectacles, and there were many people


who complained about this, but they would have done a service if they had wondered why it should be so. It was generally accepted during the debates of 1948 that hundreds of thousands of people in this country were deprived of spectacles for no other reason than that they could not afford them.
There was an even worse side to it—one of the rather squalid and sordid sides to a commercial society—that many people were going to chain stores and were purchasing spectacles which they were prescribing for themselves which the purveyors of those spectacles knew were in fact positively harmful to the people wearing them. Money was made in this country, not only out of the normal commercial transactions which I suppose one must expect in a capitalist society, but out of the purchase and issue of these spectacles, which would not only fail to help the person's sight, but would be positively damaging. Indeed, many hon. Members with medical experience on both sides of the House are fully aware of the very severe damage which many people, particularly old ladies, have done to their eyesight by the purchase of spectacles in Woolworth's for a couple of shillings. I think it is a pretty appalling thing that people were permitted to make profits out of that type of human suffering.

Mr. Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opticians Act, passed two years ago, will prohibit this kind of thing when the relevant Section comes into force?

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he and I will be together in welcoming a provision of that kind. There is one important point arising out of that. There is always a tendency, I think on both sides of the House, to be frightened by unnecessary compulsion. There is always a desire to believe that the instincts of all people are basically good, and while I do not want to be accused of being a died-in-the-wool Hobbesian, it is a truism that if people are left to their own devices, if money can be made, and if the making of that money results in an increase in human suffering, there will always be some people who are prepared to make that money. It was the existence of such people which gave rise to

the Measure to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred.
It is a tragedy that today, twelve years after the Act was passed, we should be talking about people prescribing spectacles for themselves in chain stores. It is a very real responsibility of hon. Members of this House that, as a result of the imperfections of the National Health Service at the present time, people are prescribing spectacles and damaging their own health. It was never the intention of the Service that a position like this should arise, and it was never our desire that it should continue.
The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary went to considerable lengths to say that in her opinion the feeling against the present situation was not very widespread among the customers or clientele of the National Health Service. I do not think that is true. There is a very wide feeling among people in the country at the present time against the National Health Service in general and particularly against the methods of providing spectacles in it. This is very largely the fault of the National Health Service. Like many State industries, it has not yet become fully alive to the need to sell itself to the public. There are some people on the other side of the industrial fence who use a great deal of their clients' money in selling the industry, and it seems to me that the State should do so as well.
There is a feeling in the country that the National Health spectacles today are a cheap form of spectacles, something which one purchases when one cannot afford anything better. This is very bad, because surely it is fundamental to the Welfare State that if nothing else can be the birthright of the people in this country, the wealth of medical knowledge and the ability which we have amassed over the years should be on tap to any person who needs it without any question of money or finance entering into it.
One of the first things we should do—and I feel very strongly about this—in relation to the Service in general, is to abolish charges for spectacles in the National Health Service. It is all very well to say that people can obtain redress, or obtain assistance from the National Assistance Board, but one of the things which we have to accept is that one of the ways in which we have


failed is that today the feeling against obtaining Government charity or against National Assistance is almost as strong as it ever was. I think this is unfortunate. It is wrong, and it shows that we have failed in our relationship to the public. It is a fact that there are many old people in this country who, faced with the choice of either having spectacles financed by the National Assistance Board or not having spectacles at all, will go without spectacles. I think this is a great pity, and therefore I should like first of all to ask the Government to consider the abolition of all charges for National Health Service spectacles.
A great deal of play has been made about the question of different types of frames, and in many respects the frames are almost as important as the lenses, particularly in the case of small children. Only those who have gone through the horrors of being called "Four eyes", when about the age of 6, 7, 8 or 10, have realised the very real hardship which this could mean to a child in being given spectacles which are downright ugly. With the growth of scientific ability and the increased use of plastics there is no reason why any person in this country should not obtain from the National Health Service spectacles which, in appearance, at any rate, are as good as any which can be provided from private sources. There is no difficulty in providing attractive frames; neither is it very expensive. I would agree that if a person wants to purchase spectacles with gold frames and gold filigree work at the sides, that is an expense which he should bear himself. But whether we like it or not, it is a fact that many National Health Service frames today are just ugly and, even worse, they are unnecessarily ugly.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said, the impression is given that there is a wide range of frames available. Nothing could be further from the truth. The range of frames consists of plastic or tortoise-shell on the one hand, and steel on the other. The sizes and shapes of the frames vary very little indeed. Even with the differences which exist, one of the misfortunes of the present situation is that very few people know what limited range is available when they go to obtain their spectacles.
I have obtained a copy of the notice which one finds in an optician's, and if this is supposed to tell the patient his entitlement it does not do a very good job. First, it lays down the statutory charges and says:
Persons who order glasses under the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service are required to pay the sum of 10s. per lens".
That is fair enough. Then it deals with spectacle frames and lenses:
Frames may be selected from the National Health Service range or the optician may provide a private frame at the applicant's request. Lenses supplied under the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service may be fitted only to a frame with a surrounding protective rim. The shape of the lens must be round, P.R.O. or contour, or half-eye or eye glasses.
Can one imagine a dear old soul going into the waiting room and deciding whether or not her lenses are round, P.R.O. or contour, or whether she has got half-eye glasses?
Nothing can take the place of a display cabinet, and this is surely the simple answer. It need not take up very much room. There is no reason why there should not be a standard display cabinet setting out the varying types of frames, easily available and compulsorily displayed. I am not afraid of compulsion in matters of this kind. If a person wishes to practise and to receive an income from the State, there is no reason why he should not co-operate with the State. I do not think there is any better alternative than to display the frames so that a patient may walk into the waiting room and decide by looking at the display which type he wishes to have.
The range of frames presents a serious problem which has been very much under-estimated by the Minister of Health. The provision of fashionable frames is not only essential from the point of view of the attractiveness of the person adorned by the frames. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington has referred to young ladies liking upswept frames. I think it is only fair to say that not only young ladies like upswept frames; young men are rather keen on them as well. This is not new. Upswept frames have been quite common in this country for several years. Yet the National Health Service grinds steadily along, and by the time it gets round to providing upswept frames, upswept frames will be as unfashionable as hobble skirts. This is one of the sins of


Governmental activity. It seems to find itself quite incapable of providing that bit of humanity, that understanding of the foibles of human nature without which no society can be happy.
I am not merely worried about teenagers or young girls. I am particularly worried about young children. Many children are prescribed with spectacles which make them a laughing stock at school, so that the moment mum's back is turned little Jimmy has got his spectacles off because he does not like to be seen wearing them. This is one of those small things which are immensely important, particularly if we want a nation of people with decent eyesight.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use what influence she has with the Minister—and, having fought the election with him in 1951, I know how difficult it is to influence him—to persuade the Government to consider seriously the possibility of providing a whole new range of spectacle frames in different colours and different shapes in order that people who wear them may enjoy wearing them. This will not only help the patient. It will help the nation, for we have a vested interest in ensuring that our people have good eyesight.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that people were aware that spectacles could be obtained under the National Health Service. Of course, they know that, but they do not know what spectacles can be obtained. The Government might also be a little more free in their prescription of bifocal lenses. Nowadays one has to prove almost near-blindness before it is possible to get anything other than the standard type of lenses. Bifocal lenses have a real place in the prescription of spectacles.
A number of points have been made about the financial difficulties of opticians in the National Health Service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure, recognise that no optician can live upon his National Health Service prescription fees. This

is a very real problem. It means that the optician can only acquire a reasonable standard of living by propagating the use of privately-prescribed spectacles.
This problem is found not only in the prescription of spectacles; it goes much further. It is a great pity that we ever had to have in the National Health Service an arrangement whereby the persons who prescribe spectacles are the persons who sell them. This is just as silly as asking the baker to leave the amount of bread that he thinks his customers ought to have.
We ought to have a salaried optical service based on health centres. This is long overdue. The Government should consider very seriously the provision of health centres in order that spectacles may be provided not on the basis of a temptation to encourage the provision of non-National Health Service spectacles, but on the basis of providing for the patient what the patient particularly needs.
Opticians are not always the best people to prescribe spectacles. I believe that in the early days when discussions were taking place on the National Health Service it was intended that the medically qualified man should have the prime responsibility of prescribing spectacles. That was not possible, merely because of the tremendous shortage of fully-qualified professional people. But twelve years have passed since the introduction of the National Health Service, and I sincerely hope that the Government will give more thought to this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the success of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Services in providing free sight-tests and a substantial reduction in cost of spectacles to the patient; but, noting the failure of some opticians to offer the complete services available under the National Health Service, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to see that the full services are made available to all who need them.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for matters arising out of the establishment of the European Free Trade Association, is is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the administrative expenses of any Government department under that Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RULES FOR DETERMINING ORIGIN AND PLACE OF CONSIGNMENT OF GOODS.)

7.1 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "origin" to "and" in line 10.
These are the words in the Clause which provide that the Board of Trade may make regulations
as to the time by reference to which, in determining eligibility"—
that is, eligibility for the lower Convention rates of duty—
… the question whether goods are to be so treated is to be decided. …
During the course of the Second Reading debate, the Government spokesmen were asked what was the object of these words and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
The reason is that the words will allow for the origin rules to apply to goods which are made earlier than the date of the regulations.
That, of course, is retrospective legislation as far as it goes. The hon. Gentleman continued:
This was felt necessary in order to deal with cases in which the goods are manufactured before the regulations come into force.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol.617, c. 1022.]
If the object is to deal with all goods of the required type, whenever manufactured, nothing would have been simpler than to say so in the text of the Bill.

The object, however, in giving the Board of Trade powers to decide the time must, I apprehend, be a little more detailed and different than that and I should like the Minister of State, Board of Trade, or the Economic Secretary, whoever replies, to say exactly the purpose of this piece of apparently retrospective legislation. I quite understand that there may be a case for it, but it was not very clearly stated, naturally enough, perhaps, in the Second Reading debate.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I would like to offer a word of additional explanation to that given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on Second Reading. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has rightly pointed out, one could not exactly give detailed explanations at the end of a Second Reading debate. What my hon. Friend said was correct, but the real purpose of the phrase which the hon. and learned Member seeks to delete is to deal with any changes in the Convention area after it has come into operation.
We have to envisage the possibility, for example, of a country leaving the Convention area. Goods may be in transit from that country to ourselves at the time and it may be necessary to determine whether they should be eligible for Free Trade Association treatment. The Clause also enables us to deal similarly with any territorial additions to the E.F.T.A. It makes it possible for us to determine whether goods already manufactured shall be eligible.
I am as sensitive as the hon. and learned Gentleman to any question of retrospective legislation, but I hardly think that one need apply the full implications of such an important phrase to this quite small matter. It is merely a question of ensuring that where there might appear to be rough edges we are able to keep matters straight and agreed.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that retrospective legislation is a topical phrase about the time of a Budget and we are approaching the Budget now. My comment on his explanation is, first, to thank him for it, and, secondly, to say that it is quite inconsistent with what his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said on Second Reading, as I understand it. However, there it is.
If I am wrong in understanding that it is intended to be used only in respect of changes in the Convention area, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me. If, on the other hand, I am right, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out subsection (4).
I suggest that we might take at the same time, Sir Gordon, the following Amendment, in line 6, leave out "to (4)"and insert "and (3)", which raises the same point.

The Chairman: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: The question is about subsection (4) of Section 12 of the Import Duties Act. Section 12 of that Act contains provisions for determining the country of origin of imported goods and by subsection (5) of Clause 1 of the Bill, nothing in subsections (2) to (4) of Section 12 of the 1958 Act is to apply for the purposes of the Bill.
Subsection (4) of Section 12 deals with fish, whales or other natural produce of the sea or goods produced or manufactured therefrom at sea. The effect is that those things are to be treated as produced or manufactured in the flag country of the ship from which they are caught or in which they are produced or manufactured. Similarly, there are provisions that they should not be deemed to be imported or consigned to the United Kingdom when they are brought there direct from that ship. I hope that I have stated the subsection rightly. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister of State will correct me.
I do not understand why it is proposed to omit that provision. I cannot see that it has much connection with the preceding sub-paragraph, unless, of course, the Board of Trade proposes to make regulations for determining these matters, which will be quite different from the subsection in the 1958 Act. If that is what the Board of Trade proposes to do, we ought to know what the regulations are.
This is not, I take it, simply a reference to the frozen fillets of which we have heard a good deal at one time

or another, because it includes whales, among other things, and filleted whale or frozen fillets of whale hardly come into the picture. It is much wider than that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain why the Government have thought it necessary to depart from the 1958 standard, which seems a reasonable one, and to give power to make regulations in quite unqualified terms on much the same matter.
I make the comment that the regulation-making powers in the Bill are extremely wide. It is right and proper that the Government should be asked to explain their purpose and how they are intended to be used.

Mr. Erroll: I agree with what the hon. and learned Member has said about the regulation-making power being very wide. We would not have sought the power here unless we had felt it to be absolutely necessary, and I will try to explain why. The hon. and learned Member, in referring to Section 12 (4) of the 1958 Act, said that it was much the same as what is in the subsection which he proposes by his Amendment to delete.

Mr. Mitchison: I did not mean to say that. The subsection which it is proposed to delete gives a regulation-making power in almost unqualified terms, no doubt for the same subject matter, but there is a standard laid down in the 1958 Act and we want to know why and in what respect it is proposed to depart from that standard.

Mr. Erroll: The standard laid down in the 1958 Act does not go quite wide enough for our purpose, for reasons which I will try to explain. First, we had to give the force of law to the Convention rules for determining the origin of all produce including produce from the sea. The rules for produce of the sea, contained in Rule I of Annex B of the Convention uses different terminology from that used in Section 12 (4) of the 1958 Act, and they are subject to revision from time to time.
It is, therefore, essential for us at the Board of Trade to have the regulation-making power so that we can deal with the origin rules for produce of the sea as for other produce. This would enable us to make amendments from time to


time without difficulty, instead of being bound by Section 12 (4) of the 1958 Act.
There is another point in that it is necessary to provide that Section 12 (4) of the 1958 Act, which applies to any other enactments relating to duties or customs, shall not apply for E.F.T.A. purposes. Subsection (5) of the Clause as drafted does this and, therefore, it is important that we should retain in the present Bill subsection (4) and not rely on Section 12 (4) of the 1958 Act. I hope that that brief explanation will be of help to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Mitchison: I must say that I cannot regard it as quite satisfactory, because when I look, not for the first time, at Rule 2, in Annex B, it does not seem wider than subsection (4). It seems so similar in effect that I cannot see the difference. Moreover, I cannot quite understand how change in a matter of this kind is at all likely. I should have thought that it might raise rather serious questions, but this is a very technical point and the right hon. Gentleman has said, for reasons no doubt connected with the negotiations, that the Board of Trade may wish to make changes from time to time. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(VERIFICATION OF ORIGIN OF EXPORTED GOODS.)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out "An averment" and to insert "A statutory declaration".

The Chairman: I understand that it would be convenient to discuss also the two Amendments in page 3, line 23, after "averment" to insert:
made on behalf of the Commissioners or any other Government department by a person duly authorised to make the same".
and in line 26, after "shall" to insert:
on proof of the authority of that person and".

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, I think it would, Sir Gordon.
This is a Clause dealing with the averment of the origin of exported goods and it contains in subsection (4) a remarkable provision which reads:
(4) An averment in any process in proceedings under this section that any requirement to furnish information which has been made was made for the purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section shall, until the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence that the requirement was so made.
The purpose in subsection (1) is, I agree, rather complicated and a matter between Governments, or, at any rate, between Departments of Governments, and one appreciates the difficulty of proving a matter of this sort strictly. Therefore, there seems reason for having some provision that, if I may so put it, evidence that is proper by common sense should be sufficient for the purpose. I make no sharp distinction between common sense and the law, but I am sure that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, will see what I mean.
I suggest that this subsection is too wide. What is an averment? I began to try to discover and I was referred, in a legal textbook, to Coke on Littleton. I duly read it and I was not much wiser. The expression has occurred in a Customs Act which is no longer in force, but I could not find it in present legislation.
Does it mean, as it seems, that anyone who knows absolutely nothing about what is going on could say in the witness box, "I know nothing about this, but I aver that the requirement in question was met for the purpose specified in subsection (1)" of what will then be the Act? Is that to be sufficient proof, irrespective of the person's position and irrespective of his not wishing to commit himself to any knowledge or authority of any kind? I suggest that the subsection is much too wide.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me what averment means and that he will take it from me that it is not one of those common expressions which everybody who has to deal with legal matters knows as a matter of course.
I suggest, in the Amendment, that "A statutory declaration" should be substituted for "An averment". A statutory declaration is a perfectly well known thing and it need not imply that the person who makes it is speaking of his own knowledge. He can say that he is


speaking to the best of his information or belief, or something of that sort, and it can still be a statutory declaration.
The other two Amendments which we are also discussing require that the person should make the statutory declaration on behalf of the Commissioners or any other Government Departments to authorities mentioned in subsection (1) and give some proof of his authority to make the declaration. If he goes into the witness box and says, "I am authorised to make it" and he explains how or produces a written authority, in ordinary circumstances that would be sufficient. But all that is a good deal narrower than what appears in the subsection.
I do not know whether it will be suggested on behalf of the Government that that will be too troublesome. I hope it will not. It is not much that is being asked. It is a statutory declaration made on behalf of the appropriate authority, with some proof of the authority to make it on behalf of that body. I do not think that it would cause any practical difficulty, and if it would have to be done at some Customs port I should have thought that the Revenue officer, or whoever it was, could be furnished with the necessary authority and that arrangements could be made to comply with the provisions of the amended Clause.
We should be careful in legislation of this kind not to let in these Clauses which provide such a vague shadow of evidence and proof that it really amounts to nothing, because if we do it in a case where it appears at first sight to be reasonable we shall find ourselves led on by the continuous pressure of an impatient Executive to do it more and more in statutes. Therefore, I think that it is up to an Opposition, in a matter of this kind, to insist on some security. I mean, of course, security for the person accused, because these are all proceedings which may lead to investigations, reports, and so on, and, under certain conditions, to punishments, since they are proceedings to verify something.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I rise to support the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, which is one of substance. It would give confidence to importers and exporters in this country

if the declaration was on a properly constituted basis, which is more than can be said for the arrangements now in existence in, say, Hong Kong, where it is possible for a chartered accountant on the panel of people who declare the origin of the goods to be also the private accountant of the firm which is exporting the goods. Personally, I have no confidence in that type of declaration, since it is easy for ruthless people to get round a real, honest declaration. So I ask the Economic Secretary to consider the Amendment seriously and to assure us that there will be a real check on people who verify such documents.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for raising this point, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify certain matters which are not apparent from a glance at the Bill alone.
First, I will deal with the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) who, if I understood him aright, was thinking of a statement made by somebody outside this country. The averment mentioned in subsection (4) refers back to the opening words of subsection (1) of Clause 3, which read:
For the purpose of complying with any request made to the Commissioners … to verify or investigate any certificate or other evidence relevant to the question whether any goods exported from, or produced or manufactured (directly or indirectly) … from … another part of the Convention area …
In other words, the averment or the statement referred to in this subsection is one which would be made by somebody acting on behalf of the authorities in this country.
As regards the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I agree with him that we should be wary of giving powers in this Bill which are greater than those given in the past in somewhat similar circumstances. I hope, however, that when I have given the explanation he will feel that it is reasonable. I have not had the opportunity of looking up Coke on Littelton, but I think I would be no wiser if I had. The hon. and learned Gentleman said in relation to Clause 1 that he hoped the standard laid down in it might be similar to that in the Import Duties Act, 1958. I can assure him that the standard


here is similar to that laid down in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's first Amendment proposes that the words "An averment" should be left out and that in their place should be inserted "A statutory declaration". In Section 290 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, there are various matters set out, of which it is stated, that it is sufficient evidence if they are averred—
… in any process in proceedings under the customs or excise Acts …
Consequently, it is fair to say, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may think of the intrinsic merits of an affirmation or of a statutory declaration, that in this case we are following well trodden paths, and it would be a substantial innovation if in this case we were to provide that there should be a statutory declaration rather than an affirmation. As I understand it, an averment is a statement, and this subsection refers in the opening words to "An averment in any process in proceedings". So what is being dealt with here is the document, the process by which the proceedings are started.
The second Amendment refers to the possibility of an averment being made on behalf of another Government Department. By virtue of Clause 11 (2), this Bill will be a customs Act for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and consequently all the provisions of the 1952 Act in relation to legal proceedings will apply to proceedings taken under this Bill. It follows from Section 281 of the 1952 Act that proceedings can only be instituted by order of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and even if the request in question has been made through another Government Department, for example the Foreign Office, it will be for the Commissioners to establish the facts. So I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that in those circumstances, because of the reference back to the 1952 Act, it is unnecessary to make his Amendment.
The third Amendment asks that in the penultimate line of the subsection there shall be inserted the words—
… on proof of the authority of that person and
May I refer again to the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, where in Section 290 (1, c) there is provision for the proof of the

authority of a person authorised by the Commissioners. As I have said, all the provisions of the 1952 Act relating to legal proceedings are brought in by Clause 11 (2) of this Bill. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it is reasonable to ask him to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: Although this is a small point, I cannot regard that as a satisfactory answer. It may well be that the word "averred" is ensconced in the text of a Section of the 1952 Act and escaped my view when I was looking for the word "averment". As I suspected, this simply means a statement and, unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, it appears to me that anybody who has authority from the Commissioners can prove the whole of what is required for the purpose stated in subsection (1) and can give evidence on matters of which only some other Government Department knows.
We are, therefore, getting to the point that without any oath—because that appears to be unnecessary—and by some statement in writing, a representative of one Government Department can prove matters which are not within the knowledge of that Department, but of some other Department. If that is not pushing abuse of legal process rather far, I do not know what is, but I repeat that this is a small matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS WITH CONVENTION COUNTRIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I suppose that the President of the Board of Trade, who recently delivered his Second Reading speech in Zurich, is now absent in some other foreign capital. That being so, I should like to ask the Minister of State, Board of Trade or the Economic Secretary to the Treasury what the position is in relation to this Clause. The purpose of the Clause is to apply the Act to subsequent agreements with Convention countries. Have any such agreements been reached, in particular with Finland?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to reassure the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the movements of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend is not here this evening, not because—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): I do not think that subject comes under the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Erroll: I agree, Mr. Blackburn, but I felt that as a somewhat sarcastic reference had been made to my right hon. Friend's movements I might be allowed to say where he is. He is busy preparing himself for tomorrow's debate.
While Clause 6 is one which we would use in order to extend the area and admit new members and would certainly be the one which would enable us to welcome Finland, all I am able to say is that discussions have taken place. Finland's interest in associating herself with the European Free Trade Association is well known, but her association could take one of several forms and the details are at present being discussed by all the parties concerned. As these are confidential discussions, it would obviously not be proper for me this evening to make the details public, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish me to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.)

An agreement made between persons carrying on industrial or commercial undertakings, having as its object or result the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Convention area and being an agreement, to which by virtue of section eight of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, Part I of that Act does not apply, shall be voidable at the election of any party thereto:

Provided that this section shall not apply to any agreement or any class or group of agreements which by regulations the Board of Trade may declare to be compatible with the Convention.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the Clause would be that if there were an agreement between what are called in the Clause
persons carrying on industrial or commercial undertakings
and are described in the Convention as "enterprises", having as its object or result, for instance, the restriction of competition within the Convention area, it should be voidable at the election of any party to it subject to two things, that it was an agreement to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, did not apply—that is, it was one of the exempted agreements under Section 8 of that Act—or that the Board of Trade had declared that it was an agreement compatible with the Convention.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who are at the moment sitting opposite me, were at the Second Reading debate and know quite well what I have in mind. Therefore, I will put it quite shortly. The Stockholm Convention deals, by Article 15, with restrictive business practices, and it starts by saying that member States—including, of course, this country—recognise that certain practices are incompatible with the Convention in so far as they frustrate the benefits effected by the removal or absence of duties and quantitative restrictions on trade between member States. It is very easy to think of certain practices which would have that effect, and the ones that are particularly aimed at by the article include agreements between enterprises which have as their object or result
the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition".
Except for the substitution of the words "persons carrying on undertakings or enterprises" I have put the words of the article in my proposed Clause.
The question is whether the reply which was made on this point when I raised it on Second Reading is a sufficient one. What we were then told was that the two following paragraphs in Article 15 described machinery for a reference to the Council—that is the Council provided for by the Convention—in respect of such a practice, and the action by the Council, including investigation, a report and so on, and also a reconsideration of the matter in the light of experience before, at the latest, the end of 1964.
I said then, though I had to interrupt the Economic Secretary to do it, that it did not seem to me that default provisions of this kind—remedies, as it were—really met the point that I was raising. The member States recognise that certain practices are incompatible with the Convention; once they have done that, one expects them to carry out the Convention, not merely apply it but also take such legislative action as is necessary to give effect to it. They have done so in respect of certain things in the Bill, but in this respect they have done nothing whatever.
I took as an instance what I think is a very obvious one, but there are no doubt many others which will occur to the minds of the Minister and other persons concerned with trade. The instance that I took was the very ordinary one of Danish lager beer, which is imported into this country to the extent of between £1½ million and £2 million a year and will meet certain restrictive practices which will deprive it of some of the benefits expected from the removal of duties. Those restrictive practices are the usual tied house arrangements between a brewery company and its tenant.
I should have thought that if a Government became a party to a Convention of this kind they ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that their own legislation was in order and that they did not leave gaps in it, particularly where, as in this case, they had legislation dealing with restrictive business practices, which would result in incompatibility with the Convention.
At any rate it is no moral answer—I do not know whether it is a diplomatic one, for I have never understood the heights and depths of diplomacy—to say, "Yes, we recognise that it is incompatible with the Convention, but unless and until the Council does something about it we do not propose to do so." The Government ought at this stage to explain to us—let them take that instance, if they like—why such a practice as that is not incompatible with the Convention.
If it is not, if they want to rely on the next part of the provision, they are saying that the tied-house system is so well known to everybody in the other countries that they could never have expected a Tory Government to do any-

thing to interfere with it in any way. They can hardly rely on an argument of that kind.
If that is the position, what is the objection the Government make to my proposed new Clause, the more so as we are only filling in a gap which is apparent in the Restrictive Trades Practices Act itself. I am not here to discuss that act in detail, but I cannot think that those who drafted it, even if they had a tender eye on tied house restrictions, can have anticipated the Stockholm Convention and have seen that unless something was done about it they would be leading the Government into incompatibility with a treaty which the Government had only just negotiated and signed and of which it was so proud.
I do not rest on beer alone, not even on lager beer. I take them as instances. If, in a treaty of this kind, one decrees as being incompatible with the Convention certain practices, then one should, when the opportunity presents itself, make domestic legislation firm. Most particularly should one do so when, as is the case of the Outer Seven, one is very emphatically the leading partner in terms of population, of trade, and, we hope, in terms of the excellence of legislation—though that has deteriorated somewhat since the Labour Government left office.
This is not a case for making fine distinctions, or trying to wriggle out of things by leaving it all to the Council. The honest thing to do is for the Government to pull themselves together and shake off with determination the strong Tory prejudice in favour of British brewers and tied-houses and follow, for once, the language of the Convention which they have negotiated and signed.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved his new Clause with that agreeable courtesy for which he is well known and has managed to explain a complicated matter against the easy domestic references which he made to lager beer. However, I remind him of the nature of Article 15, from which he quoted in part. The article does not place any obligation on member-countries to introduce legislation.
In Section 2, it provides an opportunity for anyone who thinks that his trade is being adversely affected by the


practices referred to in Section 1, to refer the matter to the Council. The Council can then make a decision and make provision for publication of a report on the circumstances of the matter. If the report is a serious affair, it becomes possible to take further steps under Section 3 of Article 15, where it is clearly stated that "In the light of experience gained",—that means obviously whether there are a lot of reports or not, or whether they refer to one class of activity or whether it is widespread—
… the Council shall consider not later than 31st December. 1964, and may consider at any time thereafter, whether further or different provisions are necessary to deal with the effects of restrictive business practices or dominant enterprises on trade between Member States.
7.45 p.m.
The article is quite clear in its scope and purpose. It recognises that there are certain restrictive practices and sets out what procedure should be followed—namely, the complaint to the Council, then the report, then the study of the report by the member States who decide whether or not any further action is necessary.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to lager beer. If Danish brewers felt they were unable to sell in Britain all the lager beer they thought they could sell because of the practices which he has described—and which I am not necessarily codemning myself but accept his point for the time being—it would be for them to lodge a complaint with the Council which would then be considered. But, of course, it is quite possible that the Danish brewers will be able to sell all the lager beer in this country that they wish, either through the assistance of the various retail distribution organisations or in another way.
It seems rather pointless to imagine in advance that the Danes will be restricted from selling their lager beer here, when in fact they may be perfectly content with the share of the market they may achieve in the coming years. The procedure is fully adequate to deal with any troubles that may arise.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the 1956 Act, but that is not the only power which the Government possess, particularly in regard to tied houses, because it would be possible to

have an investigation by the Monopolies Commission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Enquiry and Control) Act, 1948. Some of the arrangements mentioned both this evening and on Second Reading might well be eligible for reference to the Commission.
There is little further I need add, except to point out that even if we could issue regulations under paragraph 2 of his proposed new Clause the fact is that they would not be binding on the other countries. This is a Convention which will be binding on all the countries. We might merely be passing regulations which would affect this country only and would not achieve the more widespread loosening up of restrictions which might be deemed necessary in the light of experience. I hope the House will not consider it necessary to include this proposed Clause.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has given a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation. Clearly he has never heard of a tied house before. He does not really believe such houses exist. Such is the separation of powers in this country that tied houses must in some way or other fall within the purview of some other department. He does not need me to tell him something which my friend, Mr. Geoffrey Bing, now the Attorney-General of Ghana, expounded from time to time in this House.
The ordinary tied house arrangements oblige the tenant of a tied house to buy not only all drinks but also a lot of other things only from one firm of brewers. I recognise that there is something to be said on both sides, even for arrangements of that sort, but here we have a clear recognition that those arrangements are incompatible with the Convention in so far as they frustrate the benefits to be expected by the Danes, say, from the removal of duties.
I do not know how much the Danes or other people expect, but I think that people who are selling something usually expect to have as wide a market as possible and want to have as wide a market as possible and, unless there is some provision to the contrary, expect to have as wide a margin as possible. It is no answer in a case of this kind to say that they can sell all they want to sell, anyhow. The point is that they want to have the benefit of a wide market, but


in fact they will be restricted to a narrow market.
The hon. Gentleman says that this is merely a recognition that some practices are incompatible with the Convention and that the only consequence is that the Council may in certain circumstances be called to act. He is saying, "We recognise that for the purposes of the Convention this is, indeed, sin; there is no specific provision for my punishment in it and I therefore propose to go on sinning". That seems to be the attitude of the Government in this matter. What do they mean by saying that they recognise that certain practices are incompatible with the Convention when, someone inviting them to correct those practices, they reply, "No. We shall go on carrying on with them until we are stopped by the Council and the Council will have to look at the matter within three or four years"?
I cannot think that that is right. I repeat that I have never understood the heights and depths of diplomacy. I cannot say that the Government are bound to bring in legislation of this kind, but I can say that when they are offered a nice, although somewhat imperfect, bit of legislation on the subject, it is not good enough for them to refuse it purely on the ground that they intend to carry on the incompatibility until punished by some higher authority. It is no sufficient excuse morally, whatever it may be diplomatically.
I hope the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends are, therefore, feeling that inner shame which characterises a Government who know that they are doing something which they should not do and who know, too, that being the Government, they are unlikely to be properly punished. I suppose that I shall have to leave them with that sense of hidden guilt and in the future to drink whatever lager beer may be forced upon them by the brewers of England. If I understand the legislation about the Monopolies Commission correctly, there has to be a monopoly to the extent of one-third of the product before it can be referred to the Monopolies Commission.
Since Mr. Charles Clore failed in his first attempt, I doubt whether there is any brewer in a position to say that he has a monopoly, unless one can regard all the brewers as sufficiently ganged up together in the matter of lager beer and

other respects to constitute some sort of curious collective monopoly. It may well be. I must leave the Government with their sense of guilt.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES.)

(1) If the Board of Trade receive notice from, or from any department of, the Government of any country included in the Convention area to the effect—

(a) that goods of any description specified in the notice are being or have been imported into the United Kingdom in circumstances in which it appears that they may, under the provisions of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, be regarded as having been dumped, or
(b) that some Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom appears to have been giving a subsidy within the meaning of the said Act of 1957, affecting goods of any description so specified which are being or have been imported into the United Kingdom,

and in either case that the effect of the dumping or the giving of the subsidy is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established industry in that country, the Board shall forthwith investigate the circumstances of the case, and if it appears to them that the goods are to be so regarded or, as the case may be, that a subsidy affecting the goods has been given as aforesaid, shall exercise the power conferred on them by the said Act of 1957 to impose or vary duties of customs in such manner as they think necessary to meet the dumping or the giving of the subsidy.

(2) Every such notice as aforesaid shall for the purposes of the said Act of 1957 be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, being facts relevant to the determination for the purposes of that Act of the export price from any country of goods of a description specified in the notice, or of the fair market price of any such goods in any country, or any other facts account of which is to be taken by the Board of Trade in investigating the case to which the notice relates.

(3) Where it appears to the Board of Trade that goods of any description are being or have been imported into any country in the Convention area in circumstances in which the Government of or any other authority in that country has power corresponding to the power of the Board under the said Act of 1957 to impose or vary duties of customs in relation to goods of that description, and that the effect of the importation in the circumstances in question is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established industry in the United Kingdom, the Board shall give notice to that effect to the said Government or authority stating such relevant facts as appear to the Board to be established and shall request the exercise of that power.—[Mr. Rhodes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rhodes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
My hon. Friends and I have tried not to put new obstacles in the way of trade. We have appreciated the Government's efforts to make it possible for the Commonwealth to share in future trade and our attitude has been shared by many industries vitally affected by these provisions. Industries like the wool industry and the man-made fibres industry, to mention two out of many, have made their contributions of suggestions and help in the negotiations on this subject, although they may be disappointed with the outcome of many decisions. The Board of Trade has received much solid assistance from those sections of the textile industry.
However, one aspect of the matter is causing much concern. We have experienced imports coming from low wage countries and with a suspicion of dumping about them and we have seen action quickly taken by the textile industry for the benefit of one of its sections. We have seen large sums of money poured out to help private sectors of the industry. We are all aware of what can happen. The new Clause is designed to prevent some of those things happening and I hope that it will get a sympathetic hearing from the Board of Trade.
Article 17 (3) of the E.F.T.A. Convention provides for a member country to complain if damage is caused or threatened to one of its industries as a result of dumping into another member country by a third party. In those circumstances, members are required merely to examine the possibility of taking action. I want the Government to consider those possibilities.
The United Kingdom anti-dumping legislation of 1957 was widely drawn and would permit action in those circumstances, but that legislation does not apply to the other six member countries. We are the only country with powers wide enough to permit one member country to complain if damage is caused or threatened to one of its industries and for action to be taken.
This is a serious matter, because there is a wide disparity in the conditions under which the other six member countries operate. Portugal and Switzerland have no anti-dumping legislation. Norway, Sweden and Austria have no anti-dumping legislation. Norway, Sweden and Austria have no

powers wide enough for that Article to be implemented. I understand that the Danes are now taking powers to cope with dumping of a domestic kind, the dumping of goods into Denmark itself. They are not taking powers which are sufficiently wide to be compared with those which we have.
8.0 p.m.
If the legislation is not amended, or we are not helped in this matter, it will be possible for the Danes to ask us to take action over goods or raw materials coming into Liverpool bound for Copenhagen, but it will not be possible, under the powers which will be possessed by the Danes, for us to request them to take action regarding raw materials or goods of a semi-manufactured character coming to Denmark to be shipped here. I think that that is unfair and I ask the Minister to give us a satisfactory answer on the subject.
The Clause as drafted is modest enough and I do not think that it is unacceptable by the Minister. I am trying to focus attention on the problem one stage back from the point at which dumped goods first enter the European Free Trade Area. We cannot hope for satisfaction or fairness unless this antidumping legislation is co-ordinated. I ask the acceptance of this Clause to make it possible for, at any rate, a discussion to take place on the possibility of introducing legislation by other members of the area which would be comparable with ours.
Subsection (1) spells out the provisions of the 1957 Act, its relation to the European Free Trade Area and its implications. I wish to draw particular attention to the provisions of subsection (3). We can complain to another member of the Free Trade Area in accordance with Article (3) of the Convention. Unless something like this is done, or unless the Minister will undertake to discuss with other members of the Free Trade Area the possibility of devising anti-dumping legislation which is uniform in its application, I feel that we shall be very unfairly treated. Industries, particularly the woollen and manmade fibre industries, have offered advice on this Convention and the Agreements under it and I think that it would help them to feel that the Government had their interests at heart if we could come


to some arrangement of the kind which I am suggesting.
It may be that in its present form the Clause would prove inadequate for the purpose. If that be so, I ask for an assurance that the Government are prepared to meet the rest of the member countries and to discuss co-ordinated anti-dumping legislation in the area as a whole. I consider that a reasonable request which would be welcomed by all the industries that I have mentioned.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has been good enough to explain in detail his long and intricate but carefully prepared new Clause. Already, we have studied it most carefully, but his explanation has clarified one or two points on which I felt doubtful during our earlier studies of this interesting and ingenious Clause.
I must explain straight away that, as I see it, this new Clause, if accepted, would, in certain cases, compel the Board of Trade to go further in helping foreign industries than we might feel was justified. For that reason alone we feel that it would hardly be appropriate to accept the Clause. Clearly, it would be wrong that we should be compelled at the request of another member country to impose conditions in respect of dumping or subsidised imports which we should not impose at the request of a domestic industry. We consider that the present Act is wide enough to enable the Board of Trade to take action if overseas importers are threatened, or suffer material injury as a result of dumping by a third country, and that the powers we already possess are fully consistent with our obligations under the G.A.T.T.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Clause, as drafted, would fall foul of our obligations under the G.A.T.T. In Article VI there is a provision that an anti-dumping duty may not be imposed on imports from one G.A.T.T. country into another on account of injury to producers in a third G.A.T.T. country without the prior permission of the contracting parties. So that would be a further difficulty which would arise were his Clause accepted.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention. We feel that gives us all we

require. It will enable us to make approaches to the country concerned. If I may quote from the article, the country concerned shall
… examine the possibility of taking such action as is consistent with its international obligations to remedy the injury or prevent the threatened injury.
In our opinion, that gives us all the opening we require. It will enable us to take up cases with our partners as appropriate. We would rather have this limited power than the wider power proposed by the hon. Gentleman because there may well be circumstances in which it would be more appropriate, having looked at all the relevant circumstances, for us not to take the matter up, as we should be compelled to do under the provisions of his Clause.
Interesting as is this new Clause—I appreciate the motives which prompted the hon. Gentleman to move it—I suggest that we should prefer not to be compelled to take action which might be embarrassing at times, but rather to rely upon the powers which we already possess.

Mr. Rhodes: That may be so, but the Minister has not said how other countries to whom we may complain can do anything at all if there is no legislation in existence on which to take action. It is only because we had the Anti-Dumping Act on the Statute Book and they could appeal to us that we could do something. It was one of the major concepts in the speech introducing the Anti-Dumping Act of 1957 that it should be an example for the rest of Europe to follow. What is all this high talk? Surely, if it meant anything at all, or the Minister's remarks meant anything at all, it means that some efforts would be made to get anti-dumping legislation of a similar character on the Statute Book of other member nations in Europe.
I warn the Minister that it is a very serious matter and it should be tackled before further effort is made to obtain entrance to the Common Market. It is very serious, and I do not think that it is good enough for the Minister to think that he has any power at all in this matter under Section 3 of Article 17. It stands to common sense that if all the countries had the same code for dumping we would get action of a similar sort throughout the area.
May I ask what is the real objection to it? Can I drag out from the Government an undertaking that, at any rate, they will ask the member countries to sit down and consider what sort of co-ordinating legislation can be brought in? May I plead with the Minister to say something instead of evading the issue? Will he give an undertaking that he will take this matter up with the other member countries so that we can have some co-ordination on it?

Mr. Erroll: All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman tonight would be that the member countries are obviously fully aware of the complications in this field of legislation and that Article 17, which was agreed by them all, represents the best arrangement possible in the circumstances. As the member countries are aware of the complications in the matter. I am sure that the openings which we possess for making representations will enable further steps to be taken by individual member countries should that prove to be necessary.

Mr. Rhodes: I am perfectly well aware that the member countries know what they are at. It would suit them down to the ground if they could get out of this without having comparable legislation with us. They have not the established textile industries of the nature that we have. So this is an open invitation for people to set up in those countries and take advantage of the situation in the import of semi-manufactured goods from whatever source, whether from Prato or the Far East or anywhere else. Unless we have some co-ordination in the sort of legislation with which we are dealing, they will not, in my opinion, be able to deal adequately with a request from this Government.
If there were anything in the argument that we needed an Anti-Dumping Act in 1957, surely, now we have arrived at this point where we are coming to an agreement—and rightly so—with the other six countries composing the Outer Seven, there is some justification in my plea that co-ordinated legislation on the basis of anti-dumping is absolutely necessary.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon.

Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for this Clause, but I share his doubts about the antidumping legislation. May I plead with the Minister to give some undertaking that at the meetings of the countries which, I understand, take place from time to time it could be proposed to our partners in the Seven to have the same sort of legislation that we have already passed here?
I understand that the Government are hoping—and all of us who want to see freer trade are hoping—that the Seven can achieve by agreement something in the nature of the provisions laid down in the Treaty of Rome for the Six. By making that sort of agreement the eventual unity between the Six and the Seven will be made more easy.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a very valid point that before giving way on any points which may arise in negotiations on these agreements we should try to press other countries to have the same sort of legislation that we have to protect us and our partners.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to add my voice, too. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) put forward this Clause in this form as the be-all and end-all. The substance of what he was saying was to ask the Government to reconsider the whole question of dumping in view of the fact that the other countries concerned have not adequate anti-dumping legislation. What he sought from the Government was a simple undertaking that that would be done and that they would consult with the other partners?
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is at home and, like Socrates, or was it Euripides, thinking of high things. That is all very well, but he should, I suggest, be prepared to give an undertaking in the sense asked for. Let me point out one or two things about it. First, let us look at the Government's attitude to the context of the Convention. They have just been teased for recognising incompatibilities and refusing to do anything about them. If they take up that sort of line we would rather have some domestic legislation or domestic undertaking that bound the Government than the provisions in this Convention.
It seems to be a mater of high diplomacy and perhaps slightly more easy to avoid, but when one looks at Article 17, which is the dumping Article, I notice a difference between what my hon. Friend is asking for and what appears in that article. It is not a difference which has anything to do with G.A.T.T. but it has something to do with the Board of Trade. When we look at Article 17, the member State, the State that is causing the dumping, as it were, shall, at the request of the aggrieved member State, do what?
… examine the possibility of taking such action as is consistent with its international obligations to remedy the injury or prevent the threatened injury.
All that the suffering State has to do is to put it up to the member State to examine the matter.
In subsection (3) of this Clause—and this has something to do with the difference—the suggestion is that if this country is aggrieved the Board of Trade shall give notice to the other Government and shall request the exercise of the anti-dumping powers of that Government in so far as they exist. That is a more positive matter than simply saying, "We will look into it."
I agree that the Council might and probably would have power under Article 31—general consultation and complaints—to do something about this. I suggest to the Government that it is unreal and unfair to people in this country to leave a matter of this sort until an occasion for a complaint arises. It ought to have been discussed at an earlier stage. I do not know what discussion it had during the negotiations, whether it was pointed out to the other countries concerned that their domestic legislation was hardly sufficient for the purpose, or what they said. We have never been told that. It is being pointed out to the Government now, and I want them to look at the matter also from another point of view.
The Outer Seven—I suppose that I should say, in this connection, the Outer Six—are very different countries. Some of them have a high standard of living. Switzerland and Sweden are two of those countries, but, obviously, others have not. I believe that provisions have been put into the Convention which, in fact, recognise that the economic circumstances of Portugal are not so good as those of this country. When we get

this sort of position, a tariff preference and reduction of tariffs in favour of what I might call commercial allies, and in one of those countries labour costs as we know—I need not even say "as is probable"—are much lower than they are in this country, the risks of dumping become rather serious.
If dumping takes place, if it is not stopped, if the Board of Trade does nothing about it, we may find we shall get unemployment in the textile areas of this country and we all know that the Government have had to pay very large sums to the cotton industry. I am not discussing the merits or demerits of that, but clearly the textile industries in particular need attention in connection with this Convention. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has said, and bearing in mind that he has had a lifelong experience of the woollen trade and knows as much about it as anyone in this Committee—quite probably a great deal more—the least the Government should do in the circumstances is to agree to discuss the matter and not leave it until we reach the stage of difficulty which I have described.
It reminds me of what used to happen about school milk. At one stage there was a great deal of difficulty about getting it provided, because the answer from the Conservative Party—I hope that it has reformed its ways since then—was "Oh, they are not ill." That is to say, children should be given insufficient milk until they are ill and then provided with more. We do not want to do that to school children nor the same kind of thing when dumping is feared. There is a case on the obvious probabilities here for giving the undertaking, the request for which was the substantial object of the Clause which has been proposed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by the contemplative absence of his right hon. Friend from promising my hon. Friend and the Committee to consult the other partners in this matter to see what can be done. It is too much to let this pass because it is rather late, or because the Clause is not in the language the Government would like, or for some other procedural reason. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let the Committee know that he is giving that undertaking.

Mr. Eroll: I recognise the sincerity with which their views have been put forward by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). Although I accept that one should not try to tie an hon. Member down too closely to the details of a draft new Clause, the fact is that, as drafted, the new Clause would make no difference at all to our power to induce other E.F.T.A. countries to pass anti-dumping legislation.
Our powers—or opportunities, if hon. Members prefer that word—rest elsewhere, namely, on Article 17, subsection (3), of the Convention, and that is what we are proposing to rely on. The Committee has rather suggested that that is not enough. I daresay that if we had been prepared to spend another year on working out the details of the Convention we might have been able to make rather more progress in the precise wording of Article 17, but it has to be recognised that we were anxious to get a move on with the signing of the Convention. It was clearly impossible to lay down precise rules to cover everything, but we feel the principle for which we stand is conceded in Article 17.
I accept that there are certain member countries whose anti-dumping legislation is either not as advanced as our own or may not exist at all yet, but I think it only fair to point out that our antidumping legislation is not so all embracing as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne might imagine, because the very example he quoted—dumped goods landing at Liverpool for onward transmission to Copenhagen—would not in fact be covered by our own anti-dumping legislation as it stands at present. Therefore, I hope he will see that this is a matter of some complexity and difficulty.
I have been asked if I can give an assurance. What I can say is that we shall take most careful note of all that has been said during this debate. We realise that this is a matter of complexity and one which may cause anxiety to certain trades or individual firms. We shall consider most carefully all that has been said and look at it with the care for which the present Government are well known.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this is a

matter which may cause unemployment in this country?

Mr. Erroll: That, of course, will be one of the things we shall bear in mind.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Barber: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since my hon. Friend the Minister of State moved the Second Reading of this Bill a week ago, we have had full discussion on most of the essential matters of the Bill. If the new Association is to work both smoothly and fairly, there must be co-operation and mutual assistance between the several members. What this Bill does is to help the United Kingdom to play its full part.
There is only one brief word I wish to add on this occasion. I hope it will be helpful. It is about the further measures necessary to bring the provisions of the Convention into operation on 1st July. The reductions in protective duties will be made by Treasury orders under Section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1958, and the origin regulations will be made by the Board of Trade under Clause 1 of this Bill. We hope to lay these before the House early in May. About the same time, the Customs and Excise and the Board of Trade will publish full information as to the procedure to be followed to claim the reduced rates of duty both for imports and exports. The House will see that there will be a period of nearly two months during which traders will be able to familiarise themselves with the details of the changes and so be able to make their plans to take full advantage of the opportunity of increased trade with our partners.
The Bill has made rapid progress through this House, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will agree with me that this is a good indication of the desire of all Members to see this venture put into operation and working smoothly. I commend the Bill to the House with the confidence that it will contribute to the benefit of our industry and commerce.

Mr. Mitchison: There is little that I can or, indeed, wish to say on the Third Reading of what is a machinery Bill. Second Reading was another matter. I


should like to adopt what the Economic Secretary said at the end of Second Reading:
… I repeat that the objective of the United Kingdom—and the objective, I am sure, of all our partners—remains the same: the establishment of a single European market including all the O.E.E.C. countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1026.]
It is in the light of that objective that we have not voted against the Bill. However, I hope that we have given it some critical examination. There are still points outstanding, like the matter I raised on Second Reading concerning outwear, which will arise on the regulations. I welcome warmly Clause 7 (1) which states that any regulations made may be subject to annulment. We shall take the opportunity, if the Government do not meet our points, to raise other matters when the regulations are made.
I have had to deal with a matter which I found rather strange, and therefore I may be allowed to thank right hon. and hon. Members opposite for the child's guide which at times they have been good enough to give me. I have not always agreed with their conclusions. I have never agreed with their excuses, which I thought were a pretty poor show. However, we shall not divide against the Bill.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I, too, want to welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, but I also want to make it clear that there are certain points about which I and, I think, many people in the North, particularly those in towns engaged in the textile trade, feel most unhappy. I think that I should be out of order on Third Reading to refer in any greater detail to my fears about the deflection of trade contained in some of the provisions of the Convention and the way in which the matter is dealt with in the Bill. I only hope that Clause 1 (3) contains sufficient powers to deal with these problems as they arise and, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, that we shall under Clause 7 have tme to pray against the Regulations if we do not like them.
Apart from the specific and special difficulties of the textile industry, I think that the Bill will be of great benefit to industry as a whole. I hope that the Government will not think me ungracious if I add one more word and hope that they, too, like many people outside the House, regard the Bill as a beginning and not as an end of their work towards European unity and European free trade.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: We shall take careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) has said.
We appreciate the cordial way in which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has conducted the proceedings from his side of the Chamber. We accept in good part his allusions to the excuses which we make. He certainly did not give the impression of being a newcomer to the intricacies of this Bill. We have felt ourselves agreeably tested and look forward to the next round on some of the prayers.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

8.35 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: As this is a consolidation Bill, I propose, with the leave of the Committee, to put Clauses 1 to 16 together.

Clauses 1 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (SCOTTISH APPEAL TRIBUNALS)

8.36 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Scotland) (Amendment) Rules, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 2067), dated 18th November, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be annulled.
These rules deal with a very small point, and I do not intend to discuss the merits. They amend the rules governing the procedure of pensions appeal tribunals by increasing some fees to medical specialists and expenses to appellants in respect of medical witnesses and reports
The Statutory Instruments Committee of the House has called the attention of the House to the rules, as it is bound to do if it considers that there has been unjustified delay in laying them. The Committee does so consider. The rules are made under paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, which is a Measure affecting both England and Wales. Section 13 makes the Lord President of the Court of Session the competent rule-making authority in Scotland.
The rules were made on 18th November, 1959. They were not laid in the House until 10th December, 1959, and they came into operation on the following day. There was a delay of 22 days in laying the rules. The Statute enjoins, as do so many similar Statutes, that they should be laid as soon as possible. An explanation has been furnished by the Scottish Office in the form of a memorandum by the Lord President. He starts by saying that the rules were made on 18th November and it was not until 23rd November that the proper legal authority, the principal Clerk of Session, sent three copies of the rules to the solicitor to the Secretary of State. No comment is made by the Lord President on that delay. The 18th of November was a Wednesday, and one would have thought that a copy could have been sent before 23rd November, which was a Monday.
On the following day, 24th November, the solicitor receiving the rules which had, apparently, on this occasion, proceeded by post, sent them to the parlia-

mentary clerk at Dover House, London, with instructions to obtain proof prints. On 1st December—that is to say, a week later—the solicitor received proof prints and then sent them by van to the Principal Clerk. I do not quite know what the significance of the van is, but it is specially mentioned in the Report.
On 3rd December, the principal clerk's certified copy was sent by the solicitor to the parliamentary clerk at Dover House. The rules were laid on 10th December, and we are told that:
The period between 3rd December and 10th December is accounted for by the time taken for the prints to travel from the office of the Solicitor to the Parliamentary Clerk and the time taken for printing thereafter. The printers normally require 4 clear days for final printing.
In the Lord President's memorandum there follows this paragraph:
It is observed that between 1954 and 1959 eight Statutory Instruments enamating from the Court of Session were passed and that the times between making and laying ranged from 14 to 21 days, the average time being 17 days. This, however, is the first occasion on which the Select Committee has raised the question of delay.
I would say that the Select Committee has been very patient in the matter, but there is, I believe, what is known as the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Apparently, the difference between 21 days and 22 days just sufficed to break the Select Committee's back and make it complain of unjustifiable delay.
It is, of course, perfectly easy for the Government spokesman to—if I may use a rather crude phrase—spin quite a long yarn about how long it takes to get proof prints to and fro, about how long printers always take, and all the rest. We are put in some difficulty when considering the matter because we have not had even the experience of—what is it?—eight Statutory Instruments in five years.
I think that certain answers are necessary. First, the original delay—the one I first mentioned—is totally unexplained. I suppose that these Statutory Instruments are a bit of a shock. The Principal Clerk of Session, who I treat with all veneration, cannot be accustomed to these rare birds, but it really is a bit stiff that when the Statute tells him to lay them before Parliament as soon as possible, he should sit on them—if a Principal Clerk of Session ever does


anything like that—from Wednesday to Monday. That is unjustifiable and unexplained delay.
We can look at the matter in another way. These rules have the number 2067, followed by "(S.114),"which means that they are given that number in the Scottish series. S.113 did not need to be laid, but S.112 and S.111 did need to be laid, and they have nothing to do with the Court of Session. They were mere Scottish Office Orders, and I shall give the Government their own little timetable for them both.
The first one was the National Health Service (Travel Allowances, Etc.) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, and the next one dealt with a matter about nurses. Both, if it is material, were longer and at least as important as the Statutory Instrument that we are now considering. In both cases, they were made on 2nd December, and they were laid on 4th December. What happened to the printer? How did he manage? Where were the proof prints? Where was the sending to and fro between London and Edinburgh? Was there a van involved? We cannot tell, but, apparently, for some mysterious reason, the Scottish Office, when left to its own, manages to have an Order made on 2nd December and laid on 4th December.
When that august body the Court of Session, and that august gentleman the with unfeigned respect, because we knew Lord President—and I speak of him him in the House previously, and for other reasons—when they intervene, it becomes physically impossible to do anything during the past six years in under 14 days, to have a better average than 17 days, and on this occasion, to take 22 days.
There is a public question in this. It is not just a matter of treating Parliament, I should have thought, a little summarily in this matter of time. It is more than that. People have to act on these Orders. This happens to be a very small one, affecting, no doubt, few people, but if an Order is made and is not printed for a long time, and then comes into operation directly afterwards, the period between its being laid and when it comes into operation becomes very short indeed, in this case, one day.
During that period and, of course, as soon as it is laid, the question of praying

against it arises, if it is capable of being prayed against, and this was one of that kind of Statutory Instruments. If we push the interval up to when it comes into operation, any Prayer, perhaps a successful Prayer—and such things have been known to happen—is bound to upset the matter more because the Order will have been in operation for a longer period before it is annulled or the Government withdraw it.
On a Statutory Instrument of this kind, raising a very small matter, I would not press a Prayer to have it annulled, but I would invite the Government to give us not merely the explanation which has already been given to the Statutory Instruments Committee—which will not carry very much weight, in view of what has happened in the case of other Orders—but to say, in suitable and respectful language, on behalf of the Executive to the judiciary, that they will see that Orders, even from the Court of Session, are dealt with with more despatch in future, and that the judiciary may be invited to emulate the Scottish Office itself, and, if it cannot get Orders laid two days after they are made, to try desperately hard, in a spirit of competition, and see if they cannot manage to get it done in three.
If it is a question of the printer, I should have thought that in a matter of this kind one might adopt a revolutionary practice, and say, "Lay copies, even 50 copies, in roneoed form, rather than have them take 22 days to do it." After all, the House of Lords, which used be content with nothing less than printed cases in every instance, has had to put up with rather simpler contrivances, and a small Statutory Instrument like this might have been dealt with with more despatch.
I cannot believe that both the Scottish Office and the Court of Session are quite such humble servants of the printers, quite such humble slaves of the van and postal deliveries, and quite so intent on proof prints passing to and fro as the case which has been put to the Statutory Instruments Committee would lead one to suppose.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to second the Motion.
We are indebted to the Statutory Instruments Committee for drawing our


attention to the shocking manner in which the Court of Session, or whoever is responsible for laying this Statutory Instrument, has behaved. Although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says, this might not be a very important Instrument, the manner in which it comes into operation and is considered by the House seems to me quite wrong.
As a result of these delays, this Instrument was laid before Parliament on 10th December, so that Members of Parliament would not get it until 11th December, by which time it is in operation. Members of Parliament do not hear of this increase in fees until the increase has actually come into operation, and that is quite wrong. Suppose we decided to annul the Instrument. Would it not be wrong that doctors and other specialists should be in receipt of these increased fees for a certain period and then after a few weeks cease to draw them?
As to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I understand it, the time from 18th November until 1st December was spent in obtaining proof prints. I cannot understand why it should be necessary, to obtain proof prints—not final prints—that we should have all this traffic between Edinburgh and London. Edinburgh has dozens of first-class printing works. It is one of the finest printing towns in the whole of Britain.
Yet to get a small Instrument like this printed, three or four days are wasted while it is posted first from the Principal Clerk of Session to the solicitor at the Scottish Office, then down to the parliamentary clerk at Dover House, and then back from the parliamentary clerk to the printer. Then it goes from the printer to the parliamentary clerk, who sends it to the solicitor at the Scottish Office and from there it goes to the Principal Clerk of Session. Is all this necessary to get the Instrument printed? Is there really any need for all these journeys? By 3rd December certified proof prints are received by the solicitor with the principal clerk's letter of 2nd December. Surely it does not take all that time to get a simple Instrument printed? Surely it does not need to pass through all these people's

correspondence trays to get the job done.
In the memorandum submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State there appears a peculiar phrase which I have read and cannot understand. It says:
Since 1954 at least 50 copies of Instruments subject to negative resolution are made available in the Vote Office when the Instruments are laid and it is to enable compliance with this requirement to be made that a waiting period for final printing must elapse before an Instrument is laid.
I cannot follow that sentence. If it means anything at all, it appears to be a non sequitur.
I cannot see why there has to be a waiting period before the document is finally printed because there have to be fifty copies of it for the Vote Office. Is that what paragraph 8 means? I have read it two or three times and I cannot see any other meaning. I may be dense and unused to reading the Scottish Office documents, but certainly I cannot make much of this. It is almost as bad as some of the Bills that are produced, never mind a simple Explanatory Memorandum.
Twenty-two days to get a simple document like this before the House of Commons is a long time to take. I appreciate that the rules have to be passed between the Court of Session and the Scottish Office, which might cause some delay, but why should all this delay be caused to begin with? Surely, it was not necessary to take 15 days simply to get the Instrument printed, neither was all this trafficking.
Is it not possible for the Scottish Office to devise a simpler procedure? Is it necessary for this Statutory Instrument to come to London to be printed? Could it not be done in Edinburgh? I should have thought that it could have been done there quite well and much more rapidly and that the House could have the rules in its hands at least one week, probably two weeks, before they came into operation. We are entitled to an explanation of this phenomenal delay, because it is much longer that any previous Statutory Instrument has taken. We should also be told why there has been all this travelling from office to office simply to get the rules printed.

8.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): On this occasion, the House has seen fit to question the amount of time which has been taken to deal with these rules. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, the rules are made under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, and they differ from most other Statutory Instruments because they are made not by a Minister responsible to this House, but by the Lord President of the Court of Session. In other words, the Government do not have entire control of the rules, and the way in which they are made is only to a limited extent within the Government's control. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland is only responsible at all because he offers the Lord President the use of the machinery at his disposal for the printing and laying of the Statutory Instrument.
There has been criticism of the time involved. Although, as is made clear in the memorandum sent by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, this time is by no means abnormal for this kind of procedure, nevertheless, now that the House has drawn attention to it, we shall certainly see whether it is not possible to devise some other form than that which so far has passed without comment from the House.
I am at some additional disadvantage in this matter because in an earlier debate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that he had not been satisfied with excuses. I shall not make excuses but merely explain. As the memorandum makes clear, the rules were made on 18th November, reached the Scottish Office, when the Ministers responsible in the House come into the matter, on 24th November, and were laid before Parliament on 10th December. In other words, it took sixteen days from the time my right hon. Friend received them to the time when they were laid, which is just about the average for this type of Statutory Instrument.
One point has to be remembered, and this is really the explanation of the delay and the reason why in the two examples which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering quoted it was possible to get a completely different rate of presenta-

tion. It has to be remembered that Statutory Instruments are normally already in proof when they are made. Thereafter, they have to be printed, and that normally takes four days. In the instances which the hon. and learned Member quoted that took only two days and that is to be counted for gain. In this case, as is quite obvious, the proofs had to be sent back to Edinburgh, granted this way of dealing with the matter. If printed in Edinburgh that would be a different matter.

Mr. Willis: Why not?

Mr. Macpherson: I have already said that we should look into the possibility of doing that in future. I understand that the Lord President has at present no means at his disposal for printing a Statutory Instrument of this character.
It took ten days from the time the proofs were received in London to the time when the Instrument was laid before Parliament, four days to go back to Edinburgh and return to London, and six days to print—which was rather longer than usual admittedly, but those six days included a weekend. The House will appreciate that the time spent in getting the proofs printed has to be spent in any case. In other words, it makes no difference to the time when the rules are actually laid. What matters is the time between the completion of the proofs and the laying of the Instrument. The time of completing the proof makes no difference to the time it takes for the Instrument actually to come before the House. The position merely looks worse but is not in fact worse. It may be possible to devise means of overcoming that apparent disadvantage and we shall certainly be very glad to look into it.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering complained also about the period of coming into operation being only one day and that this gave far too little time for the House to consider the matter or for publication to be made. On that, I would certainly say that the nature of these rules does not need very much publication. The first allows a fee for a medical specialist or other technical expert whose opinion the tribunal takes. The 1949 rules say that a fee of 5 guineas or, with the leave of the President in special cases, 7 guineas shall be paid. The rule under the present Order substitutes 10 guineas for the 7 guineas


which can be paid only by leave of the President. Therefore, it is the Lord President who is the person who has to know about this.

Mr. Willis: The Lord President of the Court of Session, of course, has to know about it, but is it not also the purpose of having regulations that the House of Commons should know about them?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said and I was coming to that point. The answer is that in the laying of all such Orders and Statutory Instruments subject to the negative procedure, they almost invariably come into operation at once notwithstanding that they can be prayed against for forty days afterwards. That is perhaps one of the disadvantages of the procedure. I can remember a case about eggs some time ago when this caused a little trouble.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also asked what paragraph 8 means. As I understand it, the paragraph means that as fifty copies are needed it is as well to get the Instrument printed anyway, and therefore there is a waiting period in order to print enough copies to fulfil the usual requirement of the House for copies to be laid.

Mr. Willis: I did not understand paragraph 8. I am still wondering what the hon Gentleman's explanation of paragraph 8 means.

Mr. Macpherson: I will try to explain again if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I should have thought it was clear that paragraph 8 simply means that there must be time to enable fifty copies of Instruments subject to negative resolution to be printed in order to satisfy the requirement of the House.

Mr. Willis: Why?

Mr. Macpherson: Because fifty are required, it is convenient to print them, and four days is the normal time taken for printing. However we need not deal with that point closely. In some cases it takes two days, in this case, with an intervening weekend, it has taken six days. The hon. Gentleman asked, is there any need for all the journeys? As I have said, now that the committee has brought the matter to the attention

of the House, and now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has prayed against the rules in order to bring it still more forcibly to the attention of the House, I am certain that we shall be able to go into the matter with the Lord President to see whether any improvement can be made.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask two questions? First, if the Scottish Office thinks it advisable to have the orders printed in advance, so that there is an interval of only two days, surely the hon. Gentleman might suggest to the Lord President that there is something to be said from the public point of view for that practice? I should have thought there was a great deal to be said. My second question raises a point upon which the Minister might like to consult the Lord Advocate and refers to the first five wasted days. The law says that a copy is to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. In Scottish law, of which I know nothing, who obliges the Lord President to keep the law?

Mr. Macpherson: The Lord Advocate, who is sitting here beside me, says that it is the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Mitchison: Not since the days of Dundas.

Mr. Macpherson: I am certain that the Lord President is only too anxious to comply with the law which he is there to administer in Scotland. We appreciate that now the matter has been brought to the attention of the House we would like to have it looked at. This is not the worst example; indeed, as I pointed out, from the point of view of the time when it came into the hands of the Secretary of State, it is an average example. The mere fact that this is the first time that it has been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State and of the House is an indication that the House has been prepared in the past to recognise that the laying of rules and instruments by the Lord President gives rise to special problems. These are not present when the Secretary of State is laying orders or Statutory Instruments. Nevertheless, we are always anxious to do our best to make certain that the House is served as well as possible and we shall most gladly look into the matter.

9.10 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: This very short debate has been useful. I am sure that those of us who are interested in the subject are glad that the Joint Under-Secretary has told us time and time again that the Secretary of State is most anxious, and that he is sure that the Lord President is most anxious, about this matter. I hope that these anxious people will ensure that when this type of Statutory Instrument comes before us again it will appear in a much shorter time.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that if we took the time which was taken when the Secretary of State had the matter in his hands, it was not a very long time, and that a longer time was taken previously. But we are concerned with the total time taken, from the time the Instrument was prepared by the Lord President until it appeared before the House of Commons.
I hope that when the period of four days is discussed—I imagine that the discussions will be between the Secretary of State and the Lord President, or the Lord Advocate and the Lord President—it will be suggested that there need be no delay and that when the decision is made the Instrument can be sent immediately to St. Andrew's House—in one day. That would save three days. I hear one of my hon. Friends suggesting that it could be sent in a van. One could even walk from the Lord President to St. Andrew's House; it could be done in a very short time instead of the four days, for which no explanation has been given. I am sure that the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State will ensure that the delay is reduced.
I am also interested in the matter of the two days for travelling between Edinburgh and London. I was for a short time a Joint Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, and I would point out that it is possible to make use of the teleprinter and be perfectly certain that no mistakes are made. There is no reason

for sending the regulation by train to Edinburgh and back again.
I now turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the waiting period. I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend wanted an explanation. It seems to me that the words used in paragraph 8 do not mean what the Joint Under-Secretary says they mean. I am sure that what he said is what the paragraph is meant to mean, but the words do not express that meaning. I am sure that anyone who examined the paragraph would be puzzled.
Only 50 copies are needed to be put in the Vote Office.

Mr. N. Macpherson: At least 50 copies are needed.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman says that at least 50 copies will be needed. When it is a matter of printing it does not matter how many. Let us take it that it is 50 or 60. My hon. Friends and I would have no objection, if it would cut the time down to the four days in which the Secretary of State can do the job, if we were given cyclostyled copies to ensure that we were able to exercise the rights of Members of Parliament in these matters.
Now a number of points have been raised, and the Secretary of State says that he is sure that the Lord President is only too anxious to comply with the law and that he himself is only too anxious to see that this time is cut down. We await with interest the next Statutory Instrument which comes from the Lord President and I hope that it will not be the 22 days, or the average of 17 days, or the lowest opportunity of 14 days, but that it will be considerably shorter than that period. If it is, then this short debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Mitchison: In view of the undertaking that has been given by the Minister. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SPACE RESEARCH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

9.16 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I certainly did not introduce this subject in any sense as a scientist, even in the wildest possible use of that term. Nor did I do so because I am in any way personally attracted by the idea of space travel. In fact, the more I read about it, whether in fiction or in more serious magazines, the less attractive I find it. Apart from the very considerable hazard in competing with factors the effects of which are very largely unknown, the discomfort will be very considerable indeed.
There are the hazards of cosmic radiation, of the radiation in the Van Allen radiation layer, and the enormous precision that is needed to place a vehicle in orbit, first round the earth, then into orbit round some other planet, then to bring it back into the earth's orbit, and finally back into the atmosphere with some reasonable prospect of a safe recovery. I find this picture somewhat repellent from a purely personal point of view.
Fortunately, there are in the world and this country very large numbers of adventurous enthusiasts who see this in the reverse light and, perhaps still more fortunately, there is an almost limitless amount of scientific knowledge that can be explored by means in which any suggestion of putting a man in the pay-load would merely be introducing unnecessary complications in what is already an enormously complex problem.
As a Member for a constituency in which engineering is of paramount importance, I share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), which he voiced so admirably in an Adjournment debate last April. In short, can we, as a nation which relies so enormously on exporting skills rather than materials, afford to restrict our participation in space exploration to the very modest contributions which have been sanctioned to date? The hon Member for Lincoln feared that we would be contracting out of this great exploration and thereby be giving notice that we were ceasing to be a leading,

industrial and technological nation in the world.
Since that date we have had very welcome evidence that it is not the intention of the Government to "contract out," as the hon. Member put it, but the very modesty of the contribution which has been sanctioned does make one wonder whether it merits the suggestion that we are actively contracting in.
The United States and Russia are, of course, devoting enormous resources to this project, but I am certain that we neither could nor should attempt to emulate those efforts or attempt to contribute anything like the resources which they are putting in to it. I am equally certain that we should not be dazzled by the magnitude of these programmes, nor ignore them.
The position of this country today must depend as much as anything on the pioneering spirit of the past, I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the challenge of the exploration of space to our pioneering spirit of the present. I do not imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that the pioneers of the past—those who opened up the New World and the sea routes to the East, the inventors and scientists—foresaw even a fraction of the wealth and benefit that their endeavours, albeit subsequently, brought to mankind. That must be even more true in pure scientific research than in applied scientific research.
I believe it would be equally foolish to determine our contribution to space exploration purely on the basis of cost on the one hand or on the commercial benefits which are likely to be derived on the other. To take an example from the aircraft industry, which is very closely bound up with this subject and intensely interested in it; I suppose that in retrospect it might be argued that the tremendous advances in such techniques as metallurgy, electronics, radar and the like, which have developed almost as byproducts from experimentation in aviation, might have been achieved at lower cost if the research had been specifically directed to those commercial attributes in the first place. But I think it is very questionable whether the possibilities would ever have been contemplated, let alone given rise to planned and specific research, if it had not been for the incentive of the larger objective.
In space research, it must be even harder to foresee developments of a commercial or social value which are likely to arise as by-products of the main objective. But even at present there are practical results of a commercial nature which seem likely to stem from a satellite programme. The obvious sphere is in greater precision in weather detection. There are also possibilities of enormously simplifying and speeding up communications.
I understand that a passive or reflector type of satellite which could stay in orbit and therefore in use for many years could receive and reflect signals from one part of the earth to another part with practically no pay load other than the reflective surface. Alternatively, I am told that a delayed relay type of communication satellite could receive signals in electronic "fast time" from one part of the earth and emit them over another part, a process which could be enormously speeded up if it was possible to put a satellite in orbit in a direction opposite to that of the earth's rotation.
A satellite with a constancy of orbit could be of immense help to navigation, since such a satellite could be made fairly easy to identify, and if the orbit were truly constant it could be made to emit radio signals giving its own latitude and longitude, thereby leaving the navigator with a mere angle measurement to take with the sextant.
Whatever the magnitude of the space programmes of the United States and Russia, their very magnitude will in itself create demands and markets for the products of scientific and engineering ingenuity from all over the world. Although, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said in his Adjournment debate, prestige is sometimes associated in people's minds with those amusing but somewhat ridiculous cartoons of little men running through space with Union Jacks and hastening to park them on the moon or elsewhere before the bearers of the Star and Stripes or Hammer and Sickle can do so, there is another aspect of prestige which I believe to be immensly important in this context.
If the United States and the Western world are to have a near monopoly in this field, the United States' scientists are likely consistently to be in the lead in the development of such things as heat-resisting metals, further development in

television, electronics, temperature control at very high temperatures and pressurisation, to say nothing of the enormous importance from a medical point of view of some of the lessons which may be learnt from their researches into the possibility of putting a human being into space. If that happens, it is surely inevitable that much of the trade, particularly in those items of skill in which we so badly need to excel, is likely to go from this country to North America.
In those circumstances, I very much doubt whether it is reasonable to assume, as was assumed by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply in the debate in April, that we can indefinitely retain our best brains in this sphere in this country. It is the possessors of those brains who, almost by definition, will be particularly attracted by the challenge of this exciting exploration and the means of meeting that challenge which they will be able to enjoy in other countries. I certainly do not want us to attempt to imitate the United States' effort; it would be foolish to do so. For that effort is, to a large extent, dictated by military considerations—matters of prestige, I think to some extent in the old sense of the word which I have mentioned, and which the hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned—by their attempt to catch up with the Russians.
From the military point of view, I think it is of interest to recall that since the war the advance of the Western world has been largely based on the deterrent. In the years immediately after the war, when American superiority could be assumed, the deterrent was seen as something which would make it almost impossibly rash for Russian aggression to be undertaken on any large scale. But as it became clear that American superiority no longer existed, the deterrent was seen more as a weapon of mutual destruction, not so much to prevent a victory as to rob the victor of the fruits of victory. In our own White Paper published last week, we have seen a concentration of the nations of the Western world on schemes for producing early warnings, immensely costly schemes, which at the most, I understand, can give America only fifteen minutes' warning and Britain about four minutes' warning.
If we are not successful in the current disarmament negotiations in the sphere of nuclear disarmament, general disarmament, and the internationalisation of space, the next phase of the deterrent may well be attempts to get even earlier warnings and to produce counter-weapons which can only be successful in the sphere of space. In other words, an attempt to put various satellites into orbit, whether they be manned or merely carrying instruments. Clearly, if those efforts were successful, it could lead only to more efforts to produce more horrible forms of weapons and an arms race in space, which seems to point to an overwhelming argument in favour of international co-operation.
So far as the Western world is concerned, I do not think that co-operation should be over dominated by the United States of America. For, as I have suggested, I believe their incentive is still very largely based on military considerations. Important as those are, I believe that in the context of disarmament it could be dangerous to have an overemphasis on the attempt of America to regain her equality and then her superiority over Russia in the sphere of nuclear weapons. I certainly do not want to belittle the generosity of the United States in offering space in their Scout satellites for British instruments or the value of the International Committee on Space Research, but they impose, as I see it, as they are at present constituted a very severe limitation on British participation.
In the first place, it is as well to remember that the United States' invitation to other nations to develop instruments for their Scout programme was a general one to all nations interested; it was not specifically directed to Britain. Whatever the arrangements may have been for the immediate future for the allocation of space to Britain, in the long run we shall undoubtedly have to take our place in the queue.
Secondly, the satellites concerned are very small ones. They contemplate weights of between 100 lb. and 300 lb., leaving perhaps as little as 20 lb in weight for the instruments to be contributed by Britain and as little as one cubic foot to put them in. All that has to be contrasted with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation

said at the Royal Aeronautical Society luncheon a few weeks ago. He then pointed out that a combination of our own Blue Streak and Black Knight with a small additional rocket might well be able to put into orbit a satellite weighing up to one ton, or to send a missile of about 200 lb. as far as the moon. I am very glad to notice that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) reminded us of that fact in his excellent article in the Sunday Times yesterday.
British participation, therefore, depends first of all on the shape and size of the satellite, the room available for Britain, remembering that there will be competing demands from the United States and other nations, the altitude and orientation of orbit, and matters such as stabilisation and the mechanical and heat shocks which the instruments are liable to have to sustain on launching All these factors are entirely outside the control of the British scientists who will be designing the instruments and taking part in the experiments.
Nor do I want to ignore the contribution which we have made to date. We have had a relatively successful programme with our 20 Skylark rockets, and we have had five successful launchings of the Black Knight, some of which have carried instruments for purely scientific research up to about 500 miles. We have the Jodrell Bank telescope, which has proved of immense value in tracking Russian and American satellites and earned us a good deal of prestige. We have the promise of between £100,000 and £200,000 a year towards research instruments to be put in the American Scout satellites.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has told us that the Ministry of Aviation is carrying out a design study for a British satellite launcher based on Blue Streak and Black Knight. Whatever the future of Blue Streak may be, and I am glad to see that, contrary to Press forecasts, the Defence White Paper tells us that it is to continue, its development to date, together with the development of Black Knight, must surely give us a lead over all other nations, other than the United States and Russia, in the ability to place a satellite of our own in orbit.
I do not believe that the cost need be anything like as astronomical as


people make out. I certainly do not believe it need have any relation at all to the cost of the United States programme. Those costs are inflated, partly by the number of projects which are going on together and many of which overlap one another, partly by the emergency nature of their programme in their rush to keep up with the Russians, and partly by the fact that United States costs are in any case greater than costs in Britain.
One responsible estimate which I have seen puts a contribution of £1 million in the first year, rising by £1 million for each of the first five years and levelling off at about £5 million in the fifth year as something which would almost certainly give us a project of the magnitude equivalent to at least one of the twelve projects currently going forward in America.
The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, in its Report for 1958–59, suggested that we should not be able to put a satellite in orbit in under about five years from now. It also recommended the design study to which I have already referred and which we are told is now being undertaken, but it went on to say that in the opinion of the Council the cost of venturing into space with lunar, planetary or solar probes would be too great for our resources. It seems a little illogical to call for a design study before coming to any decision with regard to a satellite programme, but to rule out more ambitious programmes out-of-hand without any suggestion of a design study when considering projects further ahead than the satellite programme.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us tonight some reassuring news, first, of the design study with regard to Black Knight and Blue Streak, bearing in mind their ability, according to my right hon. Friend, of supporting a very substantially larger satellite than is to be available from American sources, and the enormous extra scope that that will give our scientists, in comparison with the very small space available in the American Scout satellites. Secondly, I hope he will be able to reassure us that these more ambitious projects of the future will not be ruled out until they themselves have been in due course the subject of realistic appraisal both as to

costs and the benefits likely to accrue. And I trust that in attempting to assess the latter he will remember that the dangers of failure to participate may be every bit as important as any concrete advantage that can be immediately foreseen.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), I understand, was kind enough, in my absence, to refer to an Adjournment debate which I initiated about a year ago on this subject. I thank him for that.
I ask the Minister: if Blue Streak and Black Knight are to be launched for development or Royal Air Force training in Australia during the next few years, will our scientists be ready to launch satellites with them? Opinion is that that will not be so. What are the Government going to do to put them in a position to be able to do so? I am not here asking whether Blue Streak is itself a satisfactory military weapon. We shall be having a lot of discussion on that next week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) will have more to say on the wider aspect. I put the question again: if Blue Streak and Black Black Knight are to be launched for development or training in Australia during the next few years, will our scientists be in a position to launch satellites with them? If not, what are the Government doing to put them in that position? Here is a wonderful opportunity, if these missiles are to be launched, for us to cash in on the chance at very low cost to this country.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I would not have intervened in this debate had it been confined to the usual half hour, but by very good fortune the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has chosen an occasion for this subject when we can take a little more time debating it. I certainly welcome the approach of the hon. Member to the subject.
There was a time when space travel was just a matter of fiction. It is becoming clearer and clearer every day that it is more and more of a reality. Earlier, we heard something from the Minister about his plans for supersonic flight. It


seems to me that we are perhaps a stage beyond that already and that, instead of going to America in two hours, we shall be able to put someone in a capsule and fly him there in four or five minutes. It has been asked, what would be done with the time saved? I suggest that by the time we reach that stage we should have learned to make a much wiser use of our leisure.
The hon. Member, while being enthusiastic about the subject, kept his feet well on the ground. He wanted to know what practical results will come from the space programme so that our great engineering industry may be kept in the forefront of technical development and progress. That is something with which we on this side are very seriously concerned. One of the first things that we should like to know is whether there is a conflict between the scientific advisers of the Minister for Science, who has overall responsibility here, and the practical people in the engineering and productive spheres who perhaps want to get on a little more quickly than the scientific advisers may think possible.
I should like to know whether the steering committee, upon which, I presume, there are representatives of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, is getting on with this matter in an airy-fairy or practical way. Is there a tug-of-war going on between scientists and practical people in the application of the programme?
The subject of Blue Streak has been fairly well covered, but it is perhaps the key to our debate and to future development. If it is not to be the great defence weapon first envisaged when the present Minister of Aviation was Minister of Defence, it seems to me that we have a wonderful opportunity to cut our losses, as it were, and to get something really worth while out of it from a scientific point of view. Thousands of years ago there was talk, I think, of beating ploughshares out of swords. It may be that we can beat something like a space satellite vehicle out of Blue Streak if it is not to have the military use which was first envisaged.
In a reply on 8th February, the Minister said work was being carried out on Blue Streak and Black Knight at the R.A.E. at Farnborough and in private industry, too. May we have a little more

information about these modifications and what the cost is likely to be and, more important, what time will be taken in converting Blue Streak into a missile to carry space research apparatus? I agree with the Minister that Blue Streak is certainly necessary for our own independent space research programme.
That brings me to my second point. Can the Minister give us his views on the desirability of this country carrying out its own independent space research programme, a programme of sufficient size to be worth while, so that we do not tag on behind other nations in this great endeavour? We must find out how much it is necessary to spend and how much we can spend in getting a worth while programme to compare with the limited amount of money spent at present. If the figures are anything like those given by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South I think that it is something we can well afford.
The hon. Member said that we cannot afford to be left out of this. I think that that was the keynote of his speech. May we be told how much we are spending and how much the Government anticipate spending on this project to give us a completely independent space research programme? In this great development which affects the world we know, we cannot be completely independent and, even if it were possible, I do not think it is desirable. This is the one sphere, apart from Antarctica, where we can have interdependence without any grave difficulties arising.
We may not be able to compete in money and resources with the great developments in the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., but can we be told what plans there are for co-operation—first, with the United States, although we have some knowledge of that already; secondly, with the Governments of the Commonwealth, who are also interested in this problem, and thirdly whether it is possible at this stage to co-operate with Russia in a general space programme?
I was very interested in the remarks made last week by a famous Russian scientist, a lady, who was visiting this country and whose name I cannot remember, although I would not be able to pronounce it if I could. The Parliamentary Secretary will know the speech to which I refer. After giving technical


explanations to a very large and enthusiastic audience of what the Russians were doing, she stated that the Russians would be very happy indeed to co-operate with the West in a space programme. It would be of great assistance if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us his ideas on that point.
The engineering capabilities have been stressed. A great electronics industry can be built up which will have tremendous export possibilities for us, as well as the worth-while pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. We cannot afford to be left out of this search for knowledge. We must be in the van of scientific thought and progress upon whatever lines it takes us and at whatever cost. There have been ideas of a satellite being used for spotting purposes, being suspended well outside the earth and able to keep an eye upon every kind of development all over the world. This could act as a policing force in connection with the atomic and nuclear tests which we hope will be banned.
I am glad that we have had time for the debate tonight and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us the fullest information possible, subject to any security considerations there may be.

9.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has raised an important subject this evening. I certainly have the greatest sympathy with the cogent arguments which he put forward in favour of a British programme of space research.
I am glad that my hon. Friend was supported by the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). They, also, have shown a great interest in these matters for a considerable time. We are, perhaps, fortunate, to have a somewhat longer debate tonight than we expected. I have always believed that it was far easier to put a man into space than to dam the flowing tide of Scottish oratory, but it appears that we have got away with it tonight.
Before looking to the future I should like to indicate the importance of the contribution which British scientists have already made in this field, and to give

an account of the present programme. First, and still continuing, comes the Skylark Rocket programme of upper atmosphere soundings which is run in close co-operation with Australia and using the Woomera Rocket Range. In this programme over 20 successful launchings have been carried out, providing valuable information about upper atmospheric winds, temperature and electron density.
The Skylark is designed as an upper atmosphere research tool and is not in the strict sense a space vehicle. It is a 25 ft. solid fuel rocket which can carry a payload of 100 to 150 lbs. up to an altitude of about 100 miles. Later models have an even better performance than that. It has certainly proved a relatively cheap and very reliable vehicle.
The House should know that the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration has made known its interest in purchasing four Skylarks from us. An invitation is being extended to the Administration's representatives to visit the United Kingdom to discuss precise requirements, because each Skylark is, in part, tailor-made to suit the particular experiment that it is expected to undertake. We also understand that the United States wishes to fire these rockets from the Woomera range in Australia. We welcome this further opportunity of co-operation between the Commonwealth partnership and our American allies. As the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees has said, this is a field in which we want to secure the maximum possible international co-operation.
Another project that has been very successful is, as my hon. Friend said, the Black Knight research rocket. The first five firings were all successful, and I understand that this is a unique result in this sphere. Then, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, there has been the work on optical and radio tracking of satellites and space probes. He referred particularly to Jodrell Bank, which, of course, has become a household word amongst international space scientists.
The Radio Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, at Slough, has also been providing, for more than a year now, a valuable satellite orbit prediction service. It is the site of one of the three world


data centres for the collection and international exchange of information about space vehicles and their associated components. Of the other two, one is in the United States and the other is in the U.S.S.R. Nor should we forget the contribution made by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough which did all the early precision optical observations and orbital studies and prediction.
All these activities add up to a programme which received many tributes from the scientists of other nations at the recent symposium held at Nice by COSPAR, that is, the Committee on Space Research set up by the International Council of Scientific Unions, which is a non-governmental institution having as its primary purpose what I think the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees wants, namely, the encouragement of international scientific co-operation. This symposium in Nice was attended by 250 scientists from more than 20 countries, one of which was the U.S.S.R. Of those 250 scientists, 40 came from the United Kingdom. They contributed about a dozen papers, and a sizeable exhibit which attracted considerable favourable comment.
Those activities are in addition to the two potentially most important aspects of our programme. First, there are the arrangements with the United States to which reference has been made. Under those arrangements, the United States has most generously agreed to launch a series of satellites containing instruments designed and made in this country to carry out experiments devised by our own scientists. The launching system proposed is a four-stage one, based on the solid-fuel Scout rocket as booster. This is capable of placing an instrument payload of about 150 lb. in an approximately circular orbit of a height of about 300 miles.
The experiments to be flown in the first of these satellites have recently been agreed. Briefly, they will be concerned with the electrical properties of the ionosphere, X-ray and ultra-violet radiation from the sun, and the intensity of primary cosmic rays. What exactly is to be carried out in subsequent satellites—and the exact number in the series has yet to be determined—is still under consideration. It is expected that the

launching date for the first satellite will be towards the end of 1961.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees also referred to Commonwealth co-operation. So far as that is concerned, vertical soundings and experiments in the ionosphere are being carried out in co-operation with Canada and Australia, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation recently informed the House, all Commonwealth countries have been invited to give us their suggestions on all aspects of the programme, and they are being kept fully informed of its progress.
The second potentially most important aspect of our programme arises out of the design studies which the Prime Minister announced to the House on 12th May last year were to be put in hand for the adaptation of British military rockets for possible future all-British satellite programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, asked for reassuring news about these studies. I can reassure him to this extent. The work is well in hand and the information to date is favourable to the project.
I can assure the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that there is no tug-of-war, as he called it, between one branch of the Government and another. We cannot, as the hon. Member pointed out, undertake our own independent space research programme until we have first completed the development of our own ballistic rocket. What I can tell the hon. Member for Lincoln is that what is certain is that the combination of Blue Streak and Black Knight, with a small additional rocket stage, which I understand presents no great technical difficulties, could, if wished, provide the thrust necessary to put in orbit by the mid-1960s a space stabilised satellite of between 1,000 lb. and 2,000 lb. in a near circular orbit of between 200 and 300 miles altitude. It would provide a platform for astronomical observation unimpeded by the earth's atmosphere.

Mr. de Freitas: The hon. Gentleman has used the words "if wished". I am not trying to quibble, because I know how difficult it is in winding up a short debate like this, when one has to be very careful. All I am asking is if the hon. Gentleman could develop that phrase "if wished", because if so it


would help me and other people. What is the significance of the rather unusual phrase could, if wished"?

Mr. Rippon: We have to await the results of these design studies before final decisions on what we might do are taken, but I will go as far as I can in explaining to the House what the present position is.
We are also investigating the feasibility of two other classes of satellite, first, a non-stabilised instrumentation package of some few hundred pounds weight in an orbit of maximum height of between 8,000 to 12,000 miles. The primary purpose of such a satellite will be to investigate the constitution of the earth's atmosphere and its radiation and magnetic fields. Secondly, a smaller unstabilised instrumentation package of about 50 lb. in weight in an orbit with a maximum height of 100,000 miles, primarily to investigate the properties of the sun's atmosphere.
Broadly, the fields of interest are these. First, the possibility of an astronomical observatory, that is, for looking outwards from the earth from a position outside the earth's atmosphere. That would make available for the first time many octaves of ultra-violet and infra-red radiation which would provide entirely new solar and stellar data. That is at least comparable in importance with the development of radio astronomy. The second possibility is that of a terrestrial observatory, that is, for looking at the earth, capable of making world-wide meteorological and geophysical observations. That would lead to greatly improved weather forecasting. Thirdly, there is the possibility of direct physical measurement of the extra-territorial atmosphere. Typical in this field has been the discovery, to which my hon. Friend referred, of the Van Allen field of radiation.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is impossible to foresee all the benefits which might be derived from space exploration. It may be that he goes furthest who knows not whither he is going. We cannot tell where a major scientific breakthrough might come. The hon. Member himself indicated a number of possible uses in connection with radio, television, communications, navigation and the weather.
As far as the weather is concerned, the House may like to know that a new Assistant Directorate has recently been established in the Meteorological Office for the study of the higher atmosphere.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Rippon: Particular attention will be paid to the use of rockets for carrying meteorological instruments to heights of a few hundred kilometres—about three times as high as balloons go at present—and it is hoped that it will be possible to make frequent launchings. At the same time, the possibility of using earth satellites for meteorological observations will be explored.
As I think has been pointed out by all hon. Members who have spoken, in considering these matters we have to count the cost. The annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for 1958–59, to which my hon. Friend referred, rightly said that there is a financial limit to what we can do, but the real point of the Advisory Council's argument is that while it has not recommended any British participation in the attempt, for example, to launch human beings into space, it is convinced that British science and technology have contributed and will continue to contribute valuable results in space research. The Report says—and this is broadly in line with what the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said—that these contributions should be made in specific directions appropriate to our special skills and that they should be part of an internationally-based approach.
The Advisory Council recommends the carrying out of design studies on the adaptation of British rockets, and adds that when these are available it will be possible to decide whether the additional expenditure and diversion of effort involved in a purely British satellite programme will be justified by the results which can be expected. That is the best answer that I can give to the point put by the hon. Member for Lincoln. It may be premature to make final decisions on these matters before we have further results from the design studies.
My hon. Friend mentioned some figures of the cost involved. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said on 15th February in answer to a Question:
The expenditure in the first place will be modest, but as the programme develops I have no doubt that it will increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 935.]
Granted the cost of the launcher, the rest of the expenditure, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, may not be astronomical. However, I do not want tonight to enter into that side of the argument, because the figures must necessarily be somewhat uncertain.
The position is that reliable estimates are not possible until the design studies are further advanced. But I think that

my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister for Science, speaking in another place, summed up the position when he said that what we have done in the space programme is to ensure that if and when a rocket is available, and should Parliament agree and the Cabinet so decide, our design studies will be available to modify that rocket for space research.
We have to work within the limits of our resources, but I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish Britain to continue to play her full part in pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.